ArticlePeerJ2026
Structural
Article in PeerJ, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to determine the extent to which structural (anthropometric) versus functional (physiological) characteristics drive the specialization of youth kayakers and canoeists. Methods: Using a cross-sectional comparative design, eighty-two youth athletes (42 kayakers, 40 canoeists) from the Zhejiang Provincial Training Camp were assessed. Comprehensive profiling included anthropometry (height, arm span), body composition, hematological markers (Hb, HCT), and specific fitness tests (Wingate anaerobic test, 1-RM strength, core stability, and 3,000 m run). Results: Distinct specialization patterns emerged, differentiated significantly by gender. Male athletes exhibited both structural and functional divergence: kayakers possessed significantly greater height, arm span, hematological capacity (Hb, HCT), and explosive peak power, whereas canoeists demonstrated superior posterior core stability, with no significant differences in anaerobic endurance between disciplines. In contrast, female athletes showed no significant anthropometric differences; divergence was exclusively functional. Foundational aerobic capacity and upper-body strength did not differ between female disciplines; instead, their specialization was highly specific to the glycolytic system, with female canoeists demonstrating superior anaerobic average power. Conclusion: The findings confirm that while male specialization is constrained by structural mismatches and distinct explosive power requirements, female specialization allows for greater talent mobility due to the lack of structural barriers, relying instead on highly specific functional adaptation within the anaerobic energy pathways.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.