The Underestimated Role of the Sports Psychiatrist in Athletic Performance Restoration, Maintenance, and Enhancement in Sports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In competitive and elite sports, mental health and athletic performance cannot be considered separately. Mental disorders in sports are bidirectionally associated with reduced athletic performance. A decline in performance, both within and outside of sport, can be a sign of mental disorder. Additionally, poor athletic performance is a potential risk factor for mental disorders in athletes. The central role sports psychiatrists play in the mental health of athletes is well-established. However, their role in athletic performance is less well-described and more controversial, perhaps due to a perception that performance is purely a secondary outcome of good mental health. This paper discusses the role that sports psychiatrists can play in athletic performance within competitive and elite sports. Performance can be distinguished into three key focus areas for sports psychiatrists: (i) performance restoration, (ii) performance maintenance, and (iii) performance enhancement. These should be considered throughout the continuum of mental health care, from prevention, treatment, to ongoing care for mental disorders. When reduced performance is due to a mental disorder, psychiatric treatment should purposefully aim to restore functioning and performance as part of management. Maintenance of performance is, similarly, an important element of the prevention, psychiatric treatment, and ongoing care of mental disorders. Holistic sports psychiatrists may also choose to aim for athletic performance enhancement beyond the context of mental health symptoms and disorders, to help athletes flourish and achieve their goals.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".