Sports injuries during Kabaddi: a literature review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objective: Kabaddi is an athletic contact sport that involves power, aggression, fine mind-body balance, agility, and swift reflexes. Since Kabaddi is a contact sport, athletes face a higher risk of injuries during competition and training. There is a paucity of literature regarding sports injuries during this game. This review article lays down a plinth-stone for global recognition of this game and associated sports injuries, intending to improve awareness in the sports medicine fraternity and boost further research related to this topic. Methods: A comprehensive synthesis of the relevant literature was conducted to provide insights for clinicians, trainers, and players to enhance injury prevention and rehabilitation strategies. Key Content and Findings: Kabaddi, a traditional Indian sport, is gaining popularity worldwide. Its physically demanding nature poses a significant risk for sports injuries among players. Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures with concurrent meniscal injuries are the most common soft tissue injuries in Kabaddi. However, due to the sport's aggressive and physical nature, nearly all types of injuries are possible. Conclusions: This review article highlights the mechanisms of injury and common injuries associated with Kabaddi. It also offers a comprehensive overview of the sport's origin, regulations, and etiquette. This review concludes that a multidisciplinary approach involving physiotherapists, sports orthopaedic specialists, and medical teams is crucial for conditioning players and minimizing injury risk.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it