Injury risk increases minimally over a large range of the acute:chronic workload ratio in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limited research exists on the relationship between changes in physical activity levels and injury in children. This study investigated the prognostic relationship between changes in activity measured with the acute:chronic workload ratio (ACWR) and injury in children. We used data from the Childhood Health, Activity, and Motor Performance School Study Denmark (2008-2014), a prospective cohort study of 1,670 children aged 6 to 15. We modelled the relationship between the uncoupled 5-week ACWR and injury defined as patient-reported musculoskeletal pain using generalized additive mixed models. These methods accounted for repeated measures, and improved model fit and precision compared to previous studies that used logistic models. The prognostic model predicted an injury risk of ~3% between decreases in activity level by 60% and increases by 30%. Predicted risk was lower when activity decreased by more than 60% (minimum of 0.5% with no recreational activity). Predicted risk was higher when activity increased by more than 30% (4.5% with 3-fold increase in activity). Girls were at significantly higher risk of injury than boys. We obtained similar patterns but lower absolute risks when we restricted outcome to clinician-diagnosed injury. Predicted increases in injury risk with increasing activity were much lower than previous studies in adults.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".