Performance in the Deep Squat Test and musculoskeletal injuries: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: The Deep Squat Test has been applied in pre-season evaluations of sports teams and in military courses to predict the risk of musculoskeletal injuries. Objective: To evaluate the association of DS performance and the risk of musculoskeletal injuries. Methods: In this systematic review, a search without language or time filters was carried out in MEDLINE, SciELO, SCOPUS, SPORTDiscuss, CINAHL and BVS databases with the following title words: injury prediction, injury risk and deep squat in December 2016. Participants' profile, sample size, classification of musculoskeletal injuries, follow-up time, study design and results were extracted from the studies. Bias risk analysis was performed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: Five studies were included, using different analyzes, whose results varied. Odds ratio ranged from 1.21 to 2.59 (95% CI = 1.01 - 3.28); relative risk was 1.68 (95% CI = 1.50 - 1.87), sensitivity from 3 to 24%, specificity from 90 to 99%, PPV from 42 to 63%, NPV from 72 to 75% and AUC from 51 to 58%. Conclusion: The DS can be a test whose presence of movement dysfunctions is a predictor of the risk of musculoskeletal injuries in individuals who practice physical exercises. However, due to the methodological limitations presented, caution is suggested when interpreting such results. PROSPERO registration: CRD4201706922.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.021 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".