National Basketball Association combine scores as a predictive measure of lower limb surgery over 10 consecutive seasons (2010–2020): A retrospective review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Purpose The purpose of this study was to correlate National Basketball Association (NBA) Combine scores with future surgical lower limb injury to determine if NBA Combine scores can be predictive of future surgery on the lower limb. Methods A retrospective review of NBA surgical lower limb injuries was performed using a data set covering 10 consecutive NBA seasons (2010–2020). All NBA Combine data were obtained through the official NBA Combine website. NBA Combine data were matched to injury list and compared against noninjured control, described using means and standard deviations. Differences were evaluated using independent t ‐tests, with an a priori level of significance at p < 0.05. Results A total of 27,105 injury transactions were reported and a total of 130 players were identified who had undergone lower limb surgical management. There was no statistically significant difference in anthropometric stats (weight, body fat % and height). Lane agility time, three quarter sprint and max bench press showed no statistically significant differences. However, standing vertical leap and max vertical leap showed statistically significant differences, with values increased in injured group. Mean standing vertical was 73.86 cm (SD = 7.82) in noninjured and 76.00 cm (SD = 7.77) in the injured group. Mean max vertical was 86.89 cm (SD = 9.37) in noninjured and 89.31 cm (SD = 9.17) in injured group. Knee injuries (80.0%) were most prevalent, followed by ankle (8.5%), calf (7.7%), and thigh (3.8%). Knee surgeries comprised of general surgery on knee (42.3%), meniscal surgery (20.2%), arthroscopic knee surgery (18.3%), anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (15.4%), and patellar tendon repair (3.8%). Conclusions Increased NBA Combine scores of standing and maximum vertical leap may be related to future lower limb injury requiring surgical management among basketball players. The knee remains the most injured joint with the majority of knee surgeries performed arthroscopically addressing meniscal pathology. Level of Evidence Level III.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".