MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2983811551 · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2019-101365

Impact of youth sports specialisation on career and task-specific athletic performance: a systematic review following the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) Collaborative Research Network’s 2019 Youth Early Sport Specialisation Summit

2019· review· en· W2983811551 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie Kliethermes‌, Kyle B. Nagle, Jean Côté, Robert M. Malina, Avery D. Faigenbaum, Andrew Watson, Brian T. Feeley, Stephen W. Marshall, Cynthia R. LaBella, Daniel C. Herman, Adam S. Tenforde, Anthony I. Beutler, Neeru Jayanthi

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSports medicineCINAHLEliteRigourSystematic reviewAthletesMedicineMEDLINEPsychologyPhysical therapyGerontologyPsychological interventionPsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The impact, positive or negative, of youth sport specialisation (YSS) on short-term and long-term performance is not fully understood; however, the desire to maximise performance goals is generally considered the primary reason children and adolescents specialise at a young age. We performed a systematic review of original research to establish the association of YSS and task-focused or career-focused performance outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Databases searched include PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify peer-reviewed research articles published in English between 1 January 1990 and 31 December 2018 that reported original findings on the association of YSS and performance outcomes. Studies without an explicit measure of sport specialisation, for example, volume measures without measuring sport specialisation, were excluded. RESULTS: Twenty-two articles were included in the final review; 15 addressed career performance outcomes and 7 considered task performance outcomes. All identified studies were cross-sectional or retrospective in design. The proportion of elite athletes who specialised early ranged between 7% and 85%, depending on sport and definition of specialisation. Elite athletes often specialised between the ages of 14 and 15 compared with their non-elite or semi-elite peers who typically specialised prior to 13 years. In addition, neuromuscular control, anterior reach asymmetry and physical task outcomes did not differ by specialisation status. CONCLUSION: The volume and methodological rigour of published research in this field are limited. Our review suggests that YSS is not required to achieve success at elite levels. YSS also does not appear to improve task-related performance (eg, anterior reach, neuromuscular control) outcomes for specialised athletes when compared with non-specialised athletes during childhood and adolescence.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.641
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations77
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicSports injuries and preventionFrench-language works237,207