Beyond the medals: a cross-sectional study exploring retired elite female athletes’ health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Little is known about the impact of elite sport participation on long-term athlete health. We aimed to: (1) describe musculoskeletal, mental health, reproductive/endocrine and cardiovascular characteristics in retired elite female athletes and compare to the general population and (2) explore athletes' perceptions of their elite sport participation and its impact on health. Methods: A 136-item online questionnaire was disseminated to Canadian elite female rowing and rugby athletes >18 years old, >2 years retired from elite competition. Matched general population data were obtained from Statistics Canada when available. Results: Seventy-four (24% response rate) athletes (average age 45 (±9) years; retired 15 (±9) years) completed the questionnaire (30 rowing, 44 rugby athletes). During their career, 63 athletes (85%) experienced a hip/groin, knee, foot/ankle injury, or low back pain, with 42 (67%) reporting ongoing symptoms. Athletes 35-54 years reported worse knee symptoms and quality of life compared with the general population (symptom: p=0.197; d=1.15 [0.66, 1.63]; quality of life: p=0.312 d=1.03 [0.54, 1.51]) while other hip, knee and foot/ankle outcome scores were similar. Retired athletes had lower odds of anxiety (OR=0.155 [95% CI0.062 to 0.384]), greater lifetime/ever odds of amenorrhea (OR=6.10 [95%CI 2.67 to 13.96]) and gave birth when older (p<0.05). Fifty-nine (79%) recalled witnessing or experiencing at least one form of harassment/abuse during their career. Sixty athletes (81%) rated their current health as above average or excellent and 61 (82%) would compete at the same level again if given the choice. Conclusion: These novel insights can inform future preventative efforts to promote positive elite sport-related outcomes for current, former and future female 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".