583 FO24 – Effects of different training interventions on injury risk in novice recreational runners: a three-arm randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated effectiveness of training interventions on prevention of running-related injuries. Objective To investigate the effectiveness of two strength training programs on reducing the risk of lower extremity (LE) injury in novice runners. Design Three-arm RCT Setting Recreational sports Participants Healthy runners (18–55 y.) with <2 years of running experience were recruited. The final study group comprised of 325 (245 female and 80 male) participants randomised into Hip (n=108), Ankle (n=111) or control (n=106) group. Participants responded to weekly questionnaires about injuries and running exposure during the 24-week study. Interventions Interventions included strength and stability exercises focusing on hip and core (Hip) or ankle (Ankle) performed before running. Control group performed static stretching exercises. All groups were supervised by a study physiotherapist and performed the same running program. Main Outcome Measurements Running-related LE injuries, acute and overuse injuries analysed separately. Substantial overuse injuries were those leading to moderate or severe modifications in training and/or reduced performance. Results Average weekly prevalence of overuse injuries was 36% lower (prevalence rate ratio, PRR 0.64; 95% CI 0.41–0.99), P=0.046) and prevalence of substantial overuse injuries 50% lower (PRR 0.50, 0.27–0.93, P=0.027) in the Hip compared with the control group. No significant difference was observed between Ankle and control group in the prevalence of overuse injuries (PRR 0.85; 95% CI 0.56–1.28). There was no difference in the incidence of acute injuries between Hip and control group (incidence rate ratio, IRR 1.42, 95% CI 0.63–3.22), whereas significantly higher incidence was observed in Ankle compared with control group (IRR 2.5, 1.19–5.29, P=0.015). Conclusions Hip focused strength program was effective in reducing the prevalence of LE overuse injuries in novice runners. Ankle focused program did not reduce overuse injuries, and undesirably increased the incidence of acute LE injuries.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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.
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".