MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995351909 · doi:10.5763/kjsm.2019.37.4.155

Achilles Tendon Injury and Seasonal Variation: An Analysis Using Google Trends

2019· article· en· W2995351909 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yun-Sik Cha, Seok-Min Hwang, Pei-Jiun Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Korean Journal of Sports Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicData-Driven Disease Surveillance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAchilles tendonVariation (astronomy)TendonPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Achilles tendon injury is one of the most common sports-related injuries. Several studies suggest that Achilles tendon injury is associated with seasonal variation. The purpose of this study is to determine the relationship between seasonal variations and Achilles tendon injury through Google Trends (GT) and to evaluate the correlation between GT and actual data. Methods: We identified three articles through PubMed database as control group. The experimental group (GT group) was collected from GT by setting the same conditions as the control group. For GT group, we use the search terms related to the Achilles tendon injury. The exploration period was set from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2018. Results: There is approximately more than 90% (p 0.05) correlation between GT group and control group. The incidences of Ontario were the highest in the summer. Those of New York and Vancouver were higher in spring compared to those of Ontario. Conclusion: Our study implies that there is significant seasonal variation for Achilles tendon injury. Most of these injuries seem to occur in spring and summer. Also, there is a significant relationship between GT data and actual data. If the data from GT can be analyzed properly, these approach methods will be useful for epidemiological research.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Korean Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicData-Driven Disease SurveillanceFrench-language works237,207