Associations Between Early Specialization and Ice Hockey Goaltender Hip Kinematics: A Cross-sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare hip kinematics between early specialized (ES) and not early specialized (NES) ice hockey goaltenders. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Twenty-six goaltenders’ (13 ES) kinematics were quantified during common goaltending tasks (ie, butterfly drops, power and butterfly slides) performed on a slide board using Theia3D markerless technology. Maximum and minimum hip flexion, adduction, and internal rotation (IR) angles were determined, as were the concurrent hip angles in the two other planes at these positions. The groups were compared using independent t tests or Mann-Whitney U tests for discrete data and statistical parametric mapping for hip angles over time. RESULTS: ES goaltenders had increased IR and abduction at lower flexion and less IR and abduction at higher flexion compared to NES goaltenders. Neither group reached the expected extreme ranges of flexion, adduction, or IR typically associated with mechanical bony impingement of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). CONCLUSION: The ES goaltenders may minimize combined flexion and IR or abduction to avoid pain in hips due to FAIS or labral tears or have adopted advantageous hip control strategies to avoid abnormal hip contact mechanics that contribute to developing these pathologies. JOSPT Open 2025;3(1):35-44. Epub 18 September 2024. doi:10.2519/josptopen.2024.0069
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".