Perspectives on pre-participation cardiovascular screening in young competitive athletes: U SPORTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To investigate the pre-participation cardiovascular screening (PPS) protocols currently implemented at U SPORTS (the governing body of university sport in Canada) sanctioned schools as well as the attitudes toward PPS as reported by Canadian University medical and athletic personnel. Methods: A 15-question survey was sent to the U SPORTS athletic directors in both French and English. The survey focused on the current practices of PPS within the respondents’ universities as well as attitudes regarding PPS. Athletic directors distributed the instructions to participate in the voluntary survey at their own discretion to coaches, athletic therapists, physicians, and associated personnel working within U SPORTS-sanctioned schools. Results: Twenty-three athletic therapists, 12 coaches, 6 physicians, and 5 associated personnel completed the survey (46 in total). Half of the respondents (52%) reported that some form of PPS was conducted at their institution. Eighty percent of respondents agreed with the implementation of mandatory PPS, and 60% reported that they believe their athletes have a neutral attitude toward PPS. Three respondents documented having witnessed an athlete’s sudden cardiac arrest/death. Conclusion: Members of the athletic care teams at U SPORTS-sanctioned schools display an overall positive attitude toward the implementation of mandatory PPS. Based on concerns raised by survey respondents, PPS procedures would need to be developed in a time- and cost-effective manner if PPS were to be expanded.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".