Hang up your cleats and hope for the best? A cross-sectional study of five health domains in retired elite female rugby players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To investigate retired elite female rugby players' health outcomes (and their relationships) in five key areas (musculoskeletal, cognitive, mental, reproductive/endocrinological and cardiovascular) and how those compare with the general population. Methods: Female rugby players aged ≥18 years old and retired from elite competition ≥2 years were recruited via email or social media to complete a 179-item online questionnaire and neurocognitive assessment. Data from general population controls (matched for age and sex) were obtained where available. Results: 159 participants responded (average age 43 (±5) years). 156 (98%) reported a hip/groin, knee, foot/ankle or lower back injury during their career, of which 104 (67%) reported ongoing pain. Participants reported worse hip and knee outcomes compared with the general population (p<0.0001). 146 (92%) reported sustaining one or more concussions. History of concussion was associated with lower-than-average scores on neurocognitive assessment. Compared with general population data, retired female rugby players reported less anxiety (OR=0.079 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.19)), depression (OR=0.67 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.78)) and distress (OR=0.17 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.19)). Amenorrhoea rates were higher compared with matched controls, and the age at menopause was younger. The prevalence of hypertension was higher. The rugby players perceived that their health decreased in retirement and cited a lack of physical activity as a main contributor. Conclusion: Our findings point to the potential value of screening and monitoring, and identifying preventative measures during sporting careers to promote health and long-term quality of life for athletes.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".