MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389078810 · doi:10.4085/1062-6050-0164.23

The Dogma of Running Injuries: Perceptions of Adolescent and Adult Runners

2023· article· en· W4389078810 on OpenAlexaff
Raven Bachand, David M. Bazett-Jones, Jean-François Esculier, Christine Fox, Grant E. Norte, Micah C. Garcia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Athletic Training · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionContext (archaeology)PsychologyHuman factors and ergonomicsApplied psychologyInjury preventionPoison controlPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineMedical emergencyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.420
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Athletic TrainingSame topicLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesFrench-language works237,207