Persistence and activity levels of primitive reflexes in young high-level football players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Primitive reflexes (PR) induce involuntary automatic movements in response to specific stimuli. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of active PR in young high-level football players. Methodology Sixty-nine national-level football players from a French academy were tested (17.0 ± 1.4 years; 69.6 ± 8.0 kg; 178.9 ± 6.9 cm) to evaluate the persistence of PR, following the methodology of the Institute for Neuro-Physiological Psychology (INPP) and the classification by a global score (GS). Based on the sum of seven tests, each was rated between 0 = null and 4 = max. The GS is classified into five categories from no activity to maximal (0–1 = no activity, 2–7 = low, 8–13 = medium, 14–21 = high, and 22–28 = maximal). Result Around two-thirds (68.1%) of players presented active PR at different activity levels. Among them, a small proportion (7.2%) had medium GS, while 60.9% had a low GS. The GS was not dependent on field position or the age of the players ( p > 0.05). However, playing football in an age category higher than their own was associated with significantly more active primitive reflexes (PR) compared to being in their age category ( p < 0.01). The results showed that 72.7% of “upgraded” football players had low GS and 18.2% had medium GS, compared to 55.3% and 2.1% in the non-upgraded group. Discussion The findings of the current study demonstrate that PR could still be active in a healthy population of high-level football players. Practicing a single sport for years and upgrading players could create a negative environment that can ultimately lead to the activation of otherwise integrated PR.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".