Impact of COVID-19 Vaccination on Short-Term Perceived Change in Physical Performance among Elite Athletes: An International Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
COVID-19 vaccination raised concerns about its potential effects on physical performance. To assess the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on the perceived change in physical performance, we conducted an online survey among elite athletes from Belgium, Canada, France and Luxembourg, with questions about socio-demographics, COVID-19 vaccination, perceived impact on physical performance and perceived pressure to get vaccinated. Full vaccination was defined as two doses of mRNA or vector vaccine or a heterologous vaccine scheme. Among 1106 eligible athletes contacted, 306 athletes answered the survey and were included in this study. Of these, 72% perceived no change in their physical performance, 4% an improvement and 24% a negative impact following full COVID-19 vaccination. For 82% of the included athletes, the duration of the negative vaccine reactions was ≤3 days. After adjustment for potential confounding variables, practicing an individual sport, a duration of vaccine reactions longer than 3 days, a high level of vaccine reaction and the perceived pressure to get vaccinated were independently associated with a perceived negative impact on physical performance of more than 3 days after the vaccination. The perceived pressure to get vaccinated appears to be a parameter associated with the negative perceived change in the physical performance and deserves further consideration.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".