The Dogma of Running Injuries: Perceptions of Adolescent and Adult Runners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Adults perceive certain factors to increase or decrease the risk of sustaining running-related injuries, but many of their perceptions are not supported by research. Little is known about the perceptions that adolescent runners hold. Investigating perceptions for adolescent runners is needed to assist in the development of future injury educational materials, as these resources may need to be tailored differently for adolescents and adults. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that adolescent runners perceive as risk or protective factors for running-related injuries and to compare these perceptions with those of adult runners. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Online survey. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: We surveyed 302 adolescent (164 females, 138 males; age = 16.0 ± 1.4 years [range, 12-19 years]) and 357 adult runners (197 women, 160 men; age = 40.7 ± 11.8 years [range, 20-77 years]). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Participants completed a survey with questions about whether factors related to training habits, footwear, biomechanics, strength, stretching, or nutrition influence the risk of sustaining a running-related injury. If ≥75% of adolescents indicated that a factor increases or decreases the risk of sustaining an injury, we considered that factor to be a perceived risk or protective factor, respectively. We also performed Fisher's exact test to compare the proportion of adolescent and adult runners who responded with "increase," "decrease," "neither increase or decrease," or "I don't know" to each question. RESULTS: Adolescent runners perceived training habits, footwear, biomechanics, strength, stretching, and nutrition to increase or decrease the risk of sustaining a running-related injury. A larger proportion of adolescents than adults perceived that more footwear cushioning and stretching decrease injury risk, but a smaller proportion perceived that overtraining increases injury risk and strength decreases injury risk. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in perceptions exist between adolescent and adult runners, and future educational materials and research questions may need to be tailored for different running populations.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".