Epidemiology of Foot Injuries Using National Collegiate Athletic Association Data From the 2009–2010 Through 2014–2015 Seasons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Researchers analyzing data from the National Collegiate Athletic Association Injury Surveillance Program have not considered the differences in foot injuries across specific sports and between males and females. OBJECTIVE: To describe the epidemiologic differences in rates of overall foot injuries and common injuries among sports and between sexes. DESIGN: Descriptive epidemiology study. SETTING: Online injury-surveillance data from 15 unique sports involving males and females that demonstrated 1967 injuries over 4 821 985 athlete-exposures. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Male and female athletes competing in National Collegiate Athletic Association sports from the 2009-2010 through 2014-2015 seasons. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Foot injury rates (per 10 000 athlete-exposures) and the proportion of foot injuries were calculated for each sport. The effect of sex was calculated using Poisson-derived confidence intervals for 8 paired sports. A risk analysis was performed using a 3 × 3 quantitative injury risk-assessment matrix based on both injury rate and mean days of time loss. RESULTS: Foot injury rates differed between sports, with the highest rates in female gymnastics, male and female cross-country, and male and female soccer athletes. Cross-country and track and field had the highest proportions of foot injuries for both female and male sports. The 5 most common injuries were foot/toe contusions, midfoot injuries, plantar fascia injuries, turf toe, and metatarsal fractures. Only track and field athletes demonstrated a significant sex difference in injury rates, with female athletes having the higher rate. The quantitative injury risk-assessment matrix identified the 4 highest-risk injuries, considering both rate and severity, as metatarsal fractures, plantar fascia and midfoot injuries, and foot/toe contusions. CONCLUSIONS: Important differences were present among sports in terms of injury rates, the most common foot injuries, and the risk (combination of frequency and severity) of injury. These differences warrant further study to determine the mechanisms of injury and target intervention efforts.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".