MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Boston Marathon Prospective Study: Medical And Performance Outcomes Associated With Indicators Of Low Energy Availability

2023· article· en· W4387053507 on OpenAlexaff
Kristin E. Whitney, Alexandra F. DeJong Lempke, Louise M. Burke, Trent Stellingwerff, Ida A. Heikura, Chris Troyanos, Bryan Holtzman, Kaya Adelzadeh, Aaron L. Baggish, Pierre A. d’Hemecourt, Sophia Dyer, Nicole Farnsworth, Laura Reece, Anthony C. Hackney, Kathryn E. Ackerman

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsCanadian Sport Centre Pacific
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDemographyAthletesGerontologyPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To evaluate association between indicators of problematic Low Energy Availability (LEA), i.e. LEA of long duration and/or severity, and race performance and medical outcomes of athletes participating in the 2022 Boston Marathon. METHODS: Registered entrants (age ≥ 18 yr) for the 2022 Boston Marathon were recruited to complete an encrypted electronic pre-race survey (1-4 weeks pre-event), with de-identified responses related to training, nutrition, and performance history. Questionnaire data was linked to official race timing and medical encounter data from the marathon. Female LEA indicators included: total EDE-Q scores (>2.3), and/or a total LEAF-Q score (≥8), and/or self-report of diagnosed Eating Disorder/Disordered Eating (ED/DE). Male LEA indicators included: total EDE-Q scores (>1.68), and/or self-report of diagnosed ED/DE, and/or for male participants <50 yrs of age: a low sex drive score based on 3 questions from the LEAM-Q subsection on reproductive dysfunction. RESULTS: Of 1,030 study participants (F: 546, M: 484), (ages F: 43.5 ± 10.3 yrs, M: 51.5 ± 10.7 yr; mean ± SDs), 30.4% (42.5% of females and 17.6% of males) were identified with problematic LEA indicators based on validated scoring criteria. Both females and males with LEA indicators finished with significantly worse (mean age- and sex-matched) Boston Marathon division place rankings compared to healthy controls (Females: 1377.4 ± 82.9 vs. 948.9 ± 57.6, p < 0.001; Males: 1262.4 ± 103.3 vs. 794.6 ± 41.0, p < 0.001 respectively). Overall, athletes with indicators of problematic LEA had a 1.95-fold greater relative risk (CI: 1.13-3.36, p = 0.017) of requiring medical support for any condition compared to healthy controls, and a 3.55-fold greater relative risk (CI: 1.17-10.76, p = 0.025) of a significant medical event (i.e., did not finish requiring intra-event medical transportation or transfer to a local hospital from a course medical tent, or transport to a hospital from the post-finish medical area). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first large questionnaire-based study on problematic LEA where the outcomes could be directly linked to real-world performance and medical consequences in a specific competition. Our novel findings confirm the performance and health implications of problematic LEA in both female and male 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 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)0.001
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicPhysical Activity and Health→French-language works237,207→