MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408481189 · doi:10.1186/s13643-025-02806-2

Athlete monitoring in handball (ATHMON HB): a systematic review protocol

2025· review· en· W4408481189 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alexander‐Stephan Henze, Johannes Kirsten, Lynn Matits, Daniel Alexander Bizjak, Sebastian Viktor Waldemar Schulz

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineData extractionProtocol (science)Systematic reviewMEDLINEApplied psychologyInternal validityExternal validityScale (ratio)Medical educationPhysical therapyAlternative medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Athlete monitoring has become an important aspect of demanding indoor team sports like handball. Monitoring external and internal load and well-being should help coaches to optimize load management and recovery strategies to improve athletic performance and maintain athlete health. However, there is a large variety in the methods described, their coherence, and their effect on performance and health. This systematic review will summarize the methods currently used to monitor external and internal load and well-being during training and competition in team handball. METHODS: This systematic review will follow the current Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive search of electronic databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science, will be conducted until 30 April 2024. Original articles in English, German, or Spanish that assess methods for monitoring the external and/or internal load and/or well-being of healthy team handball players during training and/or competition will be considered. In addition, a backward search of all relevant full-text articles identified through the search will be conducted. Two reviewers will independently perform study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment for included studies. Included studies will be assessed for risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. It is anticipated that the number of eligible studies will be limited, and that the data extracted from them will be highly heterogeneous. Consequently, a narrative synthesis of the extracted data will be presented. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will provide the current evidence on methods for monitoring external and internal load and well-being in competitive team handball players. The results may assist practitioners in implementing an athlete monitoring. We will share our findings through scientific conferences, educational meetings for coaches and medical staff, expert meetings, and publication in a peer-reviewed journal. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024540676.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablemedium
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0270.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Systematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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 venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207