MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Influence Of Sports And Energy Intake On BMD In Female Athletes Compared To Sedentary Controls

2019· article· en· W2954273946 on OpenAlexaffabout
Adriana De la Parra Sólomon, Hugues Plourde, Sebastien Beauregard, Ross E. Andersen

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBone mineralFemoral neckAthletesBasketballPhysical therapyPhysical activityPopulationAnimal scienceInternal medicineDemographyOsteoporosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physical activity, particularly percussive activities with adequate energy intake may influence bone mineral density (BMD) in young female adults. Unfortunately, it is common to see energy deficiencies in this population that can put them at risk of health issues including lower BMD PURPOSE: To determine the influence of the type of sport and energy intake on BMD in female athletes compared to sedentary students. METHOD: Seventy-three female students (age 20.8± 1.9 y, height 167.4± 8.8 cm, weight 62.3± 9.2) from McGill University were evaluated (44 from McGill Varsity Teams: basketball (BB n=13), volleyball (VB n=11), figure skating (FS n =13), and synchronized swimming (SS n=7); and 29 sedentary healthy women (controls). Dietary intake (kcal/day) was assessed using a 3-day Food Log and analysed with the Food ProcessorTM Software. Lumbar spine (LS) (L1-L4) and femoral neck (FN) BMD were assessed by DXA scanning. A one-way ANOVA explored between-group differences and an ANCOVA examined the influence of energy intake on BMD. RESULTS: A significant difference in BMD at the LS and FN sites was observed between the type of sports (F(4,68) = 8.6, p < .001, η2 = .335; F(4,68) = 6.3, p < .001, η2 = .272, respectively). Also, BB (LS = 1.7± 1.53, p < .001; FN = 1.7± 1.13, p = .001) and VB (LS = 1.5 ± 1.55, p = .001; FN = 1.7 ± 1.66, p = .002) players had a significantly higher BMD in both sites compared to their non-athletic counterparts (LS = -0.3 ± 1.19; FN = 0.1 ± 1.04). The FS and SS athlete’s bone densities were not different from the control group (p = .719; p = .246). No significant association was observed between BMD at both sites and total energy intake/day across all groups (F(1,67) = .496, p = .484 , η2 = .007; F(1,67) = .035, p = .852, η2 = .001). There was a significant difference between the delta energy intake (recommended intake minus actual intake) in both BB and SS groups compared to the control group (p = .003 and p = 0.02, respectively). CONCLUSION: The type of sport revealed an influence on BMD. However, no significant relationship was observed between energy intake and BMD. A significant discrepancy was found between the required versus actual energy intake in some athletes. These data suggest that female varsity athletes should work closely with sports dieticians to promote healthy eating and optimize bone health.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicBone health and osteoporosis research→French-language works237,207→