The effect of length of sport experience on the prevalence of non-specific back pain and injury in soccer and ice hockey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Back pain is one of the most common health problems not only in the general population but also in athletes. However, there is a lack of evidence-based findings on the dose-response effect of athletic training on back pain and injuries. The aim of this study was to determine whether training experience affects the intensity of back pain and the number of injuries in moderate-to-high performance team sport athletes. Methods: A total of 147 male soccer players (age 27.8 ± 5.9 y; training experience 17.2 ± 5.6 y) and 179 male ice hockey players (age 29.2 ± 5.9 y; training experience 20.5 ± 6.1 y) were asked to complete questionnaires focusing on back pain and injuries: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ). Results: Spearman correlation analysis revealed significant positive associations between length of training experience and the occurrence of thoracic pain (p=0.005), low back pain (p=0.016), thoracic injuries (p=0.006), and ODI (p=0.007) in soccer players. In hockey players, training duration was significantly correlated with low back pain (p<0.001) and injuries (=0.006), ODI (p<0.001), affective dimension (p<0.001), evaluative dimension (p=0.002), miscellaneous dimension (p=0.027), and total MPQ (p=0.029). Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that the length of training experience is another important factor influencing low back pain. Therefore, it is necessary to focus more attention on more experienced players and to include significantly more compensatory exercises and recovery time in their training process.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".