303 Injury burden and characteristics in aesthetic sports among high school adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Aesthetic sports require athletes to showcase extreme flexibility, aerial maneuvers and perform hard surface landings that may increase injury risk. However, very few studies have examined injury risk in this population. Objectives To identify aesthetic sport injury prevalence among high school students and to describe the type, location and severity of injury in adolescents who practice aesthetic sports. Design Cross-sectional study. Setting High schools in Calgary area, Canada. Participants Adolescent students (n=2029; 958 male, 1048 female, 23 identified ‘other’; ages 14–19 year) from 24 high schools. Assessment of Risk Factors Self-reported participation in aesthetic sport (i.e., gymnastics, dance, figure skating) in previous one-year (based on top three sports for participation). Main Outcome Measurements Self-reported injury (time loss/medical attention), type, anatomical location, and severity. Proportions [95% confidence intervals (CI)] were adjusted for cluster by school. Results Among the 2029 students who completed the question about sport participation, 15% (302/2029) participated in aesthetic sports (282 female, 20 males; dance (247/302; 82%), gymnastics (50/302; 16%), figure skating (22/302; 7%). In the previous one-year, 74 females (26.2%; 95% CI, 20.8–32.6) and 2 males (10.0%; 95% CI, 2.6–31.2) listed aesthetic sport injury as the most severe. Ankle (26.3%; 95% CI, 17.5–37.6), knee (25.0%; 95% CI, 16.4–36.2), and back (9.2%; 95% CI 4.4–18.4) were the most common injury sites. Ligament sprains (22.7%; 95% CI 14.4–33.7), muscle strains (14.7%; 95%CI 8.2–24.9), and fractured bones (12.0%; 95% CI 6.3–21.8) were most common injury types. Medical attention injury rate was 20.5/100 athletes/year and time-loss >7 days injury rate was 11.9/100 athletes/year. Conclusions Aesthetic sport participation and injury rates among high school students are high. The most serious injuries reported were lower extremity injuries with a greater proportion of females reporting aesthetic sport injuries than males. Future research should focus on mitigation of lower extremity injuries among these high-risk aesthetic athletes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".