MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3150555068 · doi:10.1080/17461391.2021.1915391

Low energy availability in female athletes: From the lab to the field

2021· review· en· W3150555068 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Sport Science · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBody Composition Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsCanadian Sport Centre PacificUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAthletesFemale athlete triadMedicineField (mathematics)Energy (signal processing)Set (abstract data type)Physical therapyPsychologyClinical psychologyComputer scienceStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Decades of laboratory research have shown impairments to several body systems after only 4-5 days of strictly controlled consistent low energy availability (LEA); where energy availability (EA) = Energy Intake (EI) - Exercise Energy Expenditure (EEE)/Fat-Free Mass. Meanwhile, cross-sectional reports exist on the interrelatedness of LEA, menstrual dysfunction and impaired bone health in females (the Female Athlete Triad). These findings have demonstrated that LEA is the key underpinning factor behind a broader set of health and performance outcomes, recently termed as Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (RED-S). There is utmost importance of early screening and diagnosis of RED-S to avoid the development of severe negative health and performance outcomes. However, a significant gap exists between short-term laboratory studies and cross-sectional reports, or clinically field-based situations, of long-term/chronic LEA and no definitive, validated diagnostic tests for RED-S exist. This review aims to highlight methodological challenges related to the assessment of the components of EA equation in the field (e.g. challenges with EI and EEE measures). Due to the uncertainty of these parameters, we propose the use of more chronic "objective" markers of LEA (i.e. blood markers). However, we note that direct extrapolations of laboratory-based outcomes into the field are likely to be problematic due to potentially poor ecological validity and the extreme variability in most athlete's daily EI and EEE. Therefore, we provide a critical appraisal of the scientific literature, highlighting research gaps, and a potential set of leading objective RED-S markers while working in the field. HighlightsDirect application of short-term laboratory-based findings in the field is problematic.Calculation of energy availability (EA) in the field is methodologically challenging and prone to errors.The use of several biomarkers may allow the detection of early exposure to low EA in the female athlete.

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.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.269 · 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