Limitations of Separating Athletes into High or Low-Risk Groups based on a Cut-Off. A Clinical Commentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Athlete injury risk assessment and management is an important, yet challenging task for sport and exercise medicine professionals. A common approach to injury risk screening is to stratify athletes into risk groups based on their performance on a test relative to a cut-off threshold. However, one potential reason for ineffective injury prevention efforts is the over-reliance on identifying these 'at-risk' groups using arbitrary cut-offs for these tests and measures. The purpose of this commentary is to discuss the conceptual and technical issues related to the use of a cut-off in both research and clinical practice. Clinical Question: How can we better assess and interpret clinical tests or measures to enable a more effective injury risk assessment in athletes? Key Results: Cut-offs typically lack strong biologic plausibility to support them; and are typically derived in a data-driven manner and thus not generalizable to other samples. When a cut-off is used in analyses, information is lost, leading to potentially misleading results and less accurate injury risk prediction. Dichotomizing a continuous variable using a cut-off should be avoided. Using continuous variables on its original scale is advantageous because information is not discarded, outcome prediction accuracy is not lost, and personalized medicine can be facilitated. Clinical Application: Researchers and clinicians are encouraged to analyze and interpret the results of tests and measures using continuous variables and avoid relying on singular cut-offs to guide decisions. Injury risk can be predicted more accurately when using continuous variables in their natural form. A more accurate risk prediction will facilitate personalized approaches to injury risk mitigation and may lead to a decline in injury rates. Level of Evidence: 5.
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 | 0.115 | 0.561 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.033 | 0.031 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".