MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406337747 · doi:10.54254/2753-8818/2025.20270

Hamstring Strain in Sprinting Athletes: Biomechanics, Risk Factors, and Injury Prevention Strategies

2025· article· en· W4406337747 on OpenAlexaff
V. Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueTheoretical and Natural Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHamstringAthletesFlexibility (engineering)Physical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineEccentricBiomechanicsJumpingPhysical therapyStrain (injury)ConcentricWeaknessAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hamstring–related injuries, primarily hamstring strain, frequently affect both recreational and professional athletes, especially in sports that involve running, jumping, kicking, and sudden directional changes. This study presents a comprehensive analysis of HSIs, covering anatomical and biomechanical factors, kinematics, diagnostic methods, and strategies for prevention and treatment. Although the exact mechanism of HSIs during sprinting remains uncertain, no specific phase of the running cycle has been identified as presenting the highest risk. Stretch-induced HSIs, often triggered by excessive hip flexion and knee hyperextension, place significant stress on the proximal tendon and musculotendinous junction, particularly affecting the semimembranosus muscle. Risk factors for HSIs are categorized as non-modifiable (age, previous injuries, playing position) and modifiable (muscle weakness, fatigue, imbalances, limited flexibility, and poor neuromuscular control). Physiotherapy approaches that emphasize eccentric strength training—progressing through flexibility, stabilization, and specific strength phases—reduce injury rates, especially when integrated with concentric training in sprinting related sports

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.427
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheoretical and Natural ScienceSame topicSports injuries and preventionFrench-language works237,207