Association between Inter-Limb Asymmetries in Lower-Limb Functional Performance and Sport Injury: A Systematic Review of Prospective Cohort Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inter-limb asymmetry in lower-limb functional performance has been associated with increased risk of sport injury; however, findings are not always consistent. PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review on whether inter-limb asymmetry in lower-limb functional performance can predict sport injury. METHODS: Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and SportDiscus) were systematically searched for prospective cohort studies reporting the association between inter-limb asymmetry in lower-limb functional performance and sport injury. RESULTS: A total of 28 prospective cohort studies were included in the analyses. Collectively, the findings were highly inconsistent, and a clear statement on the association between each asymmetry and sport injury was difficult. CONCLUSIONS: Highly inconsistent findings make it difficult to create clear recommendations on the relationship between the inter-limb asymmetry in lower-limb functional performance (power, muscle flexibility, and dynamic balance) and sport injury. The influence of potential factors (selection of tests/parameters, participant characteristics, definition of injury, and ways of calculating asymmetry) should be considered when using previous findings.
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 | 0.010 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".