MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282925385

The one-week prevalence of overuse-related shoulder pain and activity limitation in competitive tennis players living in Toronto: a feasibility study.

2022· article· en· W4282925385 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dominique Harmath, Mohsen Kazemi, Pierre Côté, Erin Boynton

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsCentre for Disability Prevention and RehabilitationCanadian Memorial Chiropractic College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical therapyMedicineHumanitiesArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: We aimed to determine the feasibility of conducting a cross-sectional study to estimate the one-week prevalence of overuse-related shoulder pain and activity limitation in competitive tennis players. Methods: Eligible for the study were competitive adult tennis players who reside in Toronto. Using a convenience sample, the Oslo Sports Trauma Research Centre Overuse Shoulder Injury Questionnaire (OSIQ) was administered online to provide preliminary estimates of the prevalence of shoulder pain and activity limitation, injury severity and pain intensity. Feasibility outcomes included evaluating participation rate and missing data in the questionnaire. Results: Forty-three tennis players were included in the questionnaire (68.3% participation rate, 100% completion rate). There was no missing data. The one-week proportion of those with shoulder pain and activity limitation was 41.9% with a mean injury severity of 33/100. Mean pain intensity was 1.9/10. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that it is feasible to conduct a cross-sectional study to measure the one-week prevalence of shoulder pain and activity limitation in tennis players.

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)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.253 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicSports injuries and preventionFrench-language works237,207