The acute:chronic workload ratio: challenges and prospects for improvement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Injuries occur when an athlete performs a greater amount of activity (workload) than what their body can absorb. To maximize the positive effects of training while avoiding injuries, athletes and coaches need to determine safe workload levels. The International Olympic Committee has recommended using the acute:chronic workload ratio (ACRatio) to monitor injury risk, and has provided thresholds to minimize risk. However, there are several limitations to the ACRatio which may impact the validity of current recommendations. In this review, we discuss previously published and novel challenges with the ACRatio, and possible strategies to address them. These challenges include 1) formulating the ACRatio as a proportion rather than a measure of change, 2) its use of unweighted averages to measure activity loads, 3) inapplicability of the ACRatio to sports where athletes taper their activity, 4) discretization of the ACRatio prior to model selection, 5) the establishment of the model using sparse data, 6) potential bias in the ACRatio of injured athletes, 7) unmeasured confounding, and 8) application of the ACRatio to subsequent injuries.
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 | 0.078 | 0.148 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".