MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392850527 · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2024-ioc.258

905 MEP039 – Safeguarding players’ futures on the pitch: video analysis examining youth soccer warm-ups

2024· article· en· W4392850527 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVideo gamePhysical therapyPsychological interventionBalance (ability)ElitePsychologyFootballMedicineNursingComputer scienceMultimediaGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Injury risk in youth soccer has been shown to vary between sex, session type and level of play. Neuromuscular training (NMT) warm-up programs are effective for injury prevention in youth soccer. Objectives To describe current warm-up practices in youth soccer. Design Cross-sectional video-analysis study. Setting Youth elite and non-elite soccer, Canada. Participants A convenience sample of U13-U18 Tier 1–3 youth soccer teams (N=22 teams) from six clubs in Canada during the 2022 (20-weeks) outdoor season. Interventions Ten warm-ups were filmed for each team (one practice and one game) at five timepoints across the season. Main Outcome Time spent performing each NMT component (aerobic, balance, strength, agility, head-on-neck control) was analyzed. Coaches’ knowledge of NMT warm-up programs was also collected. Results Total mean time spent in warm-ups (84 games; 87 practices) was 322.4 seconds (s) (95%CI;250.3–394.5), or 5:37 minutes. Total mean time spent in NMT components was 202.2s (95%CI;150.3–254.2), or 3.37 minutes, with substantial time spent in aerobic (156.9s,95%CI;137.3–176.6). Less than one minute total was spent across other NMT components including balance (7.5s,95%CI;0–27.2), strength (28.8s,95%CI;9.1–48.4), and agility (9.1s,95%CI;0–28.7). No head-on-neck control exercise components were observed. Female elite teams spent 335.8s (95%CI;257.8–413.8) less than elite males in practices. There were no differences in game warm-ups or among non-elite groups. Among responding coaches (n=13), 38.5% knew about NMT warm-up programs, while only three (23.1%) reported using NMT warm-up programs with their teams. Teams reporting NMT use spent 26.4s (95%CI;-51.4–104.3) more in NMT components in practices and 12.5s (95%CI;-90.3–65.3) less in NMT components during games compared to those not reporting NMT use. Conclusion Time spent in core NMT components (balance, agility, strength), aside from aerobic, is limited. Head-on-neck control is a new component of NMT that requires further implementation and evaluation. Implementation strategies to increase engagement in all NMT components are essential.

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)0.000
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 score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.252 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSports injuries and prevention→French-language works237,207→