SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Sports Medicine”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed1979

The family physician and sports medicine.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Athletic Injuries↗

PubMed2026

Artificial Intelligence Cannot Replace Peer Reviewers but May Help Editors Triage: A Comparative Analysis of a Large Language Model and Human Reviewer Recommendations at the American Journal of Sports Medicine.

BACKGROUND: The peer review system faces increasing strain from rising manuscript volumes, reviewer fatigue, and well-documented interreviewer disagreement. Large language models (LLMs) have shown potential to support the peer review process, but their ability to replicate editorial decisions at high-impact medical journals and their utility as manuscript screening tools remain unknown. PURPOSE: To compare the agreement between an LLM and the final editorial decision on manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Sports Medicine and to evaluate the potential of LLMs as a manuscript screening tool. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional agreement study. METHODS: Fifty-four manuscripts randomly selected from submissions to the American Journal of Sports Medicine (September 2024-October 2024) were reviewed by a locally deployed LLM (Ministral 3 14B; Mistral AI) using a standardized prompt. The artificial intelligence (AI) produced a categorical recommendation (reject, cascade, revision, or accept) and a numerical score (0-100) for each manuscript. Agreement with the final editorial decision was assessed by Cohen kappa (4-category model) for pooled human reviewers (n = 139 reviews) and the AI (n = 54). Screening performance was evaluated by positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, and specificity. RESULTS: Pooled human reviewers demonstrated fair agreement with the final decision (κ = 0.181 [P < .001]; 42.4% agreement), while the AI demonstrated slight, nonsignificant agreement (κ = 0.126 [P = .099]; 37.0% agreement). The AI recommended revision for 61.1% of manuscripts, of which 72.7% were ultimately rejected or cascaded, demonstrating systematic "revision bias." When the AI recommended rejection, 54.5% of those manuscripts were ultimately rejected and 27.3% were cascaded; when the AI recommended cascade, 50% were rejected and 50% were cascaded. However, when the AI recommended rejection or cascade (n = 21), 90.5% received a final decision of rejection or cascade (PPV, 90.5%; specificity, 81.8%). Manuscripts with an AI score <70 were rejected or cascaded 88.0% of the time (PPV, 88.0%). CONCLUSION: AI cannot replicate the nuanced judgment of human peer reviewers at a high-impact sports medicine journal. When AI recommended rejection or cascade, 90.5% of manuscripts received that final decision (descriptive PPV, 90.5%; 95% CI, 71.1%-97.3%), suggesting potential utility as an exploratory first-pass screening tool warranting further validation in larger cohorts. However, AI could not reliably distinguish manuscripts destined for outright rejection from those that would be cascaded to a sister journal-an important limitation for editorial triage applications.

Sports Medicine↗

PubMedDate not supplied

The father of sports medicine (Galen).

Although there were many physicians who treated athletes before Galen, I believe that he was the first to devote a major portion of his time to this field of endeavor. Furthermore, his systematic observations, his aggressive pursuit of newer and better ways of treatment, his teaching, and his publishing of his observations make him a kindred soul to the team physician and practitioners of sports medicine of today. It is for these reasons that I believe that he can justly be called the "Father of Sports Medicine."

History, Ancient↗

PubMed1979