MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206006012 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.rvw.21.00060

The Effects of Physical Activity on Physeal and Skeletal Development

2021· article· en· W3206006012 on OpenAlexaff
Sasha Carsen, George Grammatopoulos, Ira Zaltz, Leanne M. Ward, Kevin Smit, Paul E. Beaulé

Bibliographic record

VenueJBJS Reviews · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical activityFemurDegeneration (medical)Physical medicine and rehabilitationPathologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

»: There is increasing evidence in the literature regarding the important health impact of and risk factors for injury in youth sport. »: Increasing pediatric and adolescent activity intensity, such as is seen in earlier single-sport focus and specialization, may be associated with morphological changes in the growing skeleton. »: Chronic subacute injury to the developing physes in the active child can lead to stress on the growth plate and surrounding tissues that induces developmental morphological changes in the joint. »: There is evidence to suggest that frequent participation in sports that place particular stress across the physes of the proximal humerus, the proximal femur, and the distal radius can be associated with an increased risk of inducing developmental and morphological changes that could lead to future joint dysfunction and premature degeneration. »: Additional research is necessary to better define the pathoetiology of activity-mediated morphological changes, as well as to create and validate parameters for safe involvement in competitive physical activities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBJS ReviewsSame topicSports injuries and preventionFrench-language works237,207