ReviewSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Developing a Fundamental Theoretical Definition for Athletic Injury: Metaphysics, Logic, and Mathematics.
Review in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Response to Comment on "Developing a Fundamental Theoretical Definition for Athletic Injury: Metaphysics, Logic, and Mathematics".Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Towards High-Accuracy Athletic Injury Predictions Using a First-Principles Modelling Approach: Theory to (Future) Practice.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- From Evidence to Application: An Operational Extension of Existing Sports Injury Frameworks for Sports Medicine Practitioners.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Athletic injury remains inadequately conceptualised and poorly defined. Existing definitions lack the conceptual clarity and logical coherence required to support its maturation into a scientifically meaningful and reliably investigable concept. Related constructs that are often integrated into various operational definitions, such as pain and athlete availability, are frequently conflated as fundamental criteria, producing conceptual instability through semantic vagueness, category conflation, and logical contradiction. These deficiencies in conceptual understanding have hindered the development of precise theoretical and operational frameworks capable of supporting formalisation and have, more broadly, undermined the critical scientific principles of predictability, testability, falsifiability, and reproducibility. To address this, this article employs a systematic process of metaphysical analysis and Carnapian explication, grounded in Aristotelian essentialism and classical logic, to develop a new, scientifically robust theoretical definition of athletic injury. This approach utilises well-established logico-philosophical tools such as thought experiments, boundary tests, and deductive reasoning to evaluate the conceptual coherence of existing definitions, and to establish a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for an athletic injury to exist. Through this process, commonly conflated concepts (Symbebekós, 'accidental properties') are examined for logical independence and disentangled from essential properties (To ti ēn einai, 'what it is to be'), revealing the logical structure that anchors this construct in observation and enables its expression within a coherent, logico-mathematical predictive framework. The outcome is an integrative framework that aligns the theoretical, observational, and mathematical dimensions of athletic injury and associated constructs, such as injury severity, recovery, and rate of recovery, into a unified, formalised system of mathematically defined and interrelated entities for consistent application in mathematical modelling, including prediction, simulation, and causal inference. This paves the way for advancements in the assessment and modelling of athletic injury and related phenomena.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.