Performance in dynamic movement tasks and occurrence of low back pain in youth floorball and basketball players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prospective studies investigating risk factors for low back pain (LBP) in youth athletes are limited. The aim of this prospective study was to investigate the association between hip-pelvic kinematics and vertical ground reaction force (vGRF) during landing tasks and LBP in youth floorball and basketball players. METHODS: Three-hundred-and-eighty-three Finnish youth female and male floorball and basketball players (mean age 15.7 ± 1.8) participated and were followed up on for 3 years. At the beginning of every study year the players were tested with a single-leg vertical drop jump (SLVDJ) and a vertical drop jump (VDJ). Hip-pelvic kinematics, measured as femur-pelvic angle (FPA) during SLVDJ landing, and peak vGRF and side-to-side asymmetry of vGRF during VDJ landing were the investigated risk factors. Individual exposure time and LBP resulting in time-loss were recorded during the follow-up. Cox's proportional hazard models with mixed effects and time-varying risk factors were used for analysis. RESULTS: We found an increase in the risk for LBP in players with decreased FPA during SLVDJ landing. There was a small increase in risk for LBP with a one-degree decrease in right leg FPA during SLVDJ landing (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.17, per one-degree decrease of FPA). Our results showed no significant relationship between risk for LBP and left leg FPA (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11, per one-degree decrease of FPA), vGRF (HR 1.83, 95% CI 0.95 to 3.51) or vGRF side-to-side difference (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.27) during landing tasks. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that there is an association between hip-pelvic kinematics and future LBP. However, we did not find an association between LBP and vGRF. In the future, the association between hip-pelvic kinematics and LBP occurrence should be investigated further with cohort and intervention studies to verify the results from this investigation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognosis, level 1b.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".