Osteoarthritis Risks and Sports: An Evidence-based Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Regular sports activities are associated with multiple physical and psychological health benefits. However, sports also may lead to injuries and the development of osteoarthritis (OA). This systematic review investigated the association between sports activity, sports type, and the risk of developing OA. METHODS: A systematic review was performed by assessing studies that have investigated the risk of OA development in sports. Data extracted included general information, study design, number of participants, related body mass index, sports type, and assessment of OA. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: A total of 63 studies were included in this systematic review. The overall Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score was 6.46±1.44 demonstrating a good methodological quality of the articles included in the present study. A total of 628,036 participants were included, with a mean follow-up of 8.0±8.4 years. The mean age of the included athletes was 45.6±15.8, with a mean body mass index of 24.9±2.3 kg/m 2 . CONCLUSION: Football and soccer players seem to be at higher risk for the development of OA, although the injury status of the joint should be considered when assessing the risk of OA. High equipment weight and increased injury risk also put military personnel at a higher risk of OA, although elite dancing leads to more hip labral tears. Femoroacetabular impingement was also often diagnosed in ice-hockey players and ballet dancers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".