MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215468691 · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2021-ioc.116

124 Bone mineral density and associated factors: do young female dancers and other recreational sport athletes differ?

2021· article· en· W3215468691 on OpenAlexaffabout
M. Critchley, Clodagh Toomey, Stacey M Lobos, Luz Palacios‐Derflingher, Sarah Kenny, Carolyn A. Emery

Bibliographic record

VenuePoster presentations · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory ServicesSouth Health CampusAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAthletesBone mineralPhysical therapyMedicineStress fracturesPhysical activityDanceInternal medicineOsteoporosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background</h3> As an aesthetic activity, dancers are susceptible to Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (RED-S), specifically low bone mineral density (BMD). Compared to sedentary groups, dancers have significantly higher BMD, but little is known about how BMD in dancers relates to other athletic populations. This knowledge may better inform comparative values and risk of bone injury. <h3>Objective</h3> To evaluate associated factors of BMD among female dancers and sporting athletes. <h3>Design</h3> Cross-sectional study. <h3>Setting</h3> Human Performance Lab, University of Calgary. <h3>Patients (or Participants)</h3> 275 females [138 pre-professional dancers (18.4 years IQR: 15.3, 19.9); 137 recreational sport athletes (23.2 years IQR: 21.9, 24.7)] participated. <h3>Interventions (or Assessment of Risk Factors)</h3> Factors evaluated: Age (years), BMI (kg/m<sup>2</sup>), supplement intake (Ca+, vitD; yes/no), stress fracture history (yes/no), irregular menses (yes/no), and MRI/bone scan (yes/no), one-year injury history (yes/no), and activity (dance/sport). All two-way interactions were evaluated. <h3>Main Outcome Measurements</h3> Whole-body BMD (g/cm<sup>2</sup>) was estimated from dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Lower extremity (LE) segmentation followed published protocols. <h3>Results</h3> The mean whole-body BMD was 1.03 g/cm<sup>2</sup> (SD:0.10) in dancers and 1.14 g/cm2 (SD:0.08) in athletes. LE BMD was 1.10 g/cm<sup>2</sup> (SD:0.11) in dancers and 1.19 g/cm2 (SD:0.08) in athletes. Age was positively associated with whole-body BMD (b=0.008,97.5%CI;0.004,0.012) and LE BMD (b= 0.007,97.5%CI;0.002,0.010). Activity modified the relationship between BMI and BMD (p&lt;0.001), for example, for a BMI of 20.1 kg/m<sup>2</sup> (mean of participants) the difference between dancers and athletes is -0.389 g/cm<sup>2</sup> [97.5% CI: -0.566, -0.195] and -0.381 g/cm<sup>2</sup> [97.5% CI: -0.552, -0.197] for whole body and LE BMD respectively. No other variables were associated with BMD. <h3>Conclusions</h3> Older age is associated with higher BMD in female pre-professional dancers and sport athletes. The relationship between BMI and BMD depends on activity type for both whole-body and lower extremity sites. Efforts to prevent bone injury should focus on younger dancers and athletes and consider the associations of changing body composition over a training season with low BMD.

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)0.000
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoster presentationsSame topicLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesFrench-language works237,207