Differences in shoulder function among badminton players broken down by age and sex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Improving the understanding of shoulder function for badminton players would develop injury preventive programs. However, no studies on shoulder function reference parameters of badminton players when controlling for age and sex have been found. OBJECTIVES: To examine the differences in shoulder function between elementary school-age badminton players and university badminton players using shoulder range of motion. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Testing at elementary school and university. PARTICIPANTS: 67 players (7-12 year-old players and 18-22 year-old players) without shoulder injury experience. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Shoulder range of motion (ROM) included internal rotation (IR), external rotation (ER), and total ROM (TROM). RESULTS: Significant differences in shoulder IR of both sides (dominant: 97.67° vs 77.78°, p < 0.001; nondominant:104.70° vs 88.89°, p < 0.001), dominant ER (126.30° vs 115.98°, p = 0.013), TROM of both sides (dominant: 222.97° vs 193.76°, p < 0.001; nondominant: 222.90° vs 200.10°, p = 0.001), and TROM loss (-0.06° vs 6.34°, p = 0.047) existed between elementary school-age and university players. Significant differences in IR of both sides existed between male elementary school-age and university players (dominant: 98.38° vs 72.50°, p < 0.001; nondominant: 106.72° vs 83.99°, p < 0.001) as well as in female players (dominant: 95.25° vs 82.84°, p = 0.007; nondominant: 103.01° vs 93.57°, p = 0.035). Additionally, significant differences in IR of both sides (dominant: 72.50° vs 82.84°, p = 0.016; nondominant: 83.99° vs 93.57°, p = 0.012) and TROM of both sides (dominant: 188.24° vs 199.05°, p = 0.025; nondominant: 192.43° vs 207.44°, p = 0.002) existed between male and female university players. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with university badminton players, elementary school-age badminton players showed significantly greater shoulder IR and TROM of both sides and dominant ER while significantly smaller TROM loss. However, regardless of sex, no significant differences of bilateral deficit for glenohumeral rotation existed between elementary school-age and university badminton players.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".