Differences in lower quarter Y-balance test with player position and ankle injuries in professional baseball players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although there has been research about the correlation between ankle injury and Y-balance test (YBT) conducted in other sports, there has been a lack of research on the correlation between ankle injury among baseball players and YBT scores or on differences in scores according to baseball positions. This study focused on professional baseball players as its subjects with the aims of analyzing the correlation between YBT and ankle injury and assessing differences in YBT between baseball positions. METHODS: Age, height, weight, body mass index, and spine malleolar distance of 42 professional baseball players were measured. YBT measurements were performed using each foot in three distinct directions. YBT normalized reach distances, composite score, and reach asymmetry were analyzed. RESULTS: The mean right posteromedial normalized reach distances for the player positions were significantly different between the pitchers (107.7%) and infielders (113.7%) ( p = 0.028). For the composite score, the difference between the pitchers (92.3%) and infielders (95.0%) was statistically significant ( p = 0.048). The anterior reach asymmetry was larger in the injured group than in the noninjured group ( p = 0.041). CONCLUSION: This study shows that YBT can be used as a way of evaluating the injury of baseball players. It also shows the reference value of YBT according to position in professional baseball players. This study could be useful for the treatment of ankle injury of baseball players. Level of evidence: Level 3.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".