Return to play of young and adult professional athletes after COVID-19: A scoping review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/objective: Given the persistence of COVID-19 under various facets and mutations, there is an urgent need to understand the debate on a safe return to play for professional athletes (young and adults) recovering from the infection. This work offers a scoping and comprehensive review on the topic during the first two years of the pandemic event by providing an identification of main clusters of research, relevant gaps and significant insights for future investigation. Methods: , SCIENCEDIRECT, and SCOPUS. Further criteria for selection are: Time range of 2020-2022; Scope: Return to play of professional athletes recovering from COVID-19 infection; 3) Types of publications: Research papers, reviews, practice guidelines, case reports; 4) Language: English. Two independent researchers performed a quality check on a random sample (n = 30%) of publications. Results: Main results reveal four research clusters deepening the analysis on: myocarditis, cardiac diseases and return to play, training and rehabilitation, mass screening and risk assessment, and sport and bio-psycho-social sphere for a safe return to play. Major collaborations occur between UK-South Africa, UK-USA, USA-Canada, and USA-Australia. Conclusions: Important gaps refer to a lack of investigation on a safe return to play for female athletes in mostly all sports disciplines; on the other hand, sport and the bio-psycho-social sphere of the athlete is a fast-growing topic. Both deserve further attention in the immediate future to improve ad-hoc sport and exercise practices.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it