MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198905699 · doi:10.3390/ijerph18189480

The Burden and Risk Factors of Patellar and Achilles Tendinopathy in Youth Basketball: A Cohort Study

2021· article· en· W3198905699 on OpenAlexaff
Oluwatoyosi B. A. Owoeye, Luz Palacios‐Derflingher, Kati Pasanen, Tate HubkaRao, Preston Wiley, Carolyn A. Emery

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTendon Structure and Treatment
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalAlberta Bone and Joint Health InstituteUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTendinopathyBasketballOdds ratioPhysical therapyInternal medicineTendonSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed at evaluating the burden and risk factors of patellar and Achilles tendinopathy among youth basketball players. Patellar and Achilles tendinopathy were prospectively monitored in 515 eligible male and female youth basketball players (11-18 years) through a competitive season. Overall, the season prevalence of patellar tendinopathy was 19.0% (95% CI: 15.7-22.7%), 23.2% (95% CI: 18.6-28.2%) in males and 12.5% (95% CI: 8.3-17.9%) in females. The season prevalence of Achilles tendinopathy was 4.3% (95% CI: 2.7-6.4%), 4.1% (95% CI: 2.2-7.0%) in males and 4.5% (95% CI: 2.1-8.4%) in females. Median proportion of symptoms duration was 83% of average total weeks of basketball exposure for patellar tendinopathy and 75% for Achilles tendinopathy. Median time to patellar tendinopathy onset was 8 weeks for male players and 6 weeks for female players. Higher odds of patellar tendinopathy risk were seen in males (OR: 2.23, 95% CI: 1.10-4.69) and players with previous anterior knee pain had significantly elevated odds (OR: 8.5, 95% CI: 4.58-16.89). The burden and risk of patellar tendinopathy is high among competitive youth basketball players. Risk factors include sex and previous anterior knee pain. These findings provide directions for practice and future 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.313 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthSame topicTendon Structure and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207