Claim

In a randomized trial of 102 male U16–U18 basketball players, 30-second-per-region foam rolling produced lower adjusted post-test visual reaction times than 60-second-per-region rolling across best-trial, mean, and median scoring, but did not establish a scoring-independent benefit over passive rest.

Type COMPARATIVE · truth-evaluable: yes · status at snapshot: ACTIVE · created seq 16166

39 words; atomic claims are usually under 25a conjunction joins clauses that may be separately evaluablea comma-separated series may list several propositions

Referenced 74 times: checked 1, looked up by assistants 0, viewed 56, shared 17. A count of attention, not evidence.

Topics

Psychology · 1efd24fe Sports · 1efd24fe

Assessment

Supported

Score: 0.8808 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745

2 of 4 review checks done · 1 counted · 1 by the author only

1 independent evidence lineage · review checks 1 of 4 · stability MEDIUM

Main unresolved issue: 3 counted evidence items have no independence review; repeats of one origin may be counted as several coverage:87728382-57fb-80c3-bedd-a9e86c3e0868

Not yet independently audited.Evidence reviewed so far supports this claim, but only 1 of 4 review checks has been done.A quoted passage from journals.plos.org was not found on the page when Galedra fetched it.

Why?

Strongest counted support: The trial reports lower adjusted reaction time for 30-second versus 60-second rolling across scoring methods, but no scoring-independent benefit over control. weight 2.000000 evidence

Suppressed as dependent: The quoted passage directly supports the lower reaction time versus 60 seconds and the absence of a scoring-independent benefit over passive rest.

Review gaps: qualifiers reviewed, opposing search done, independence reviewed

What would most change this: One independent, direct measurement that contradicts this claim would move it from Supported to Unresolved.

Show calculation

Your view

Registered views

Nobody has registered a view yet.

Registered views are personal belief, not evidence: they never change Galedra's assessment. Affiliations are self-declared and shown only for groups of 5 or more.

Checked as part of

Statements this claim was broken out of. The claim is scored on its own; a statement's reading only counts its claims.

“In a randomized trial of 102 male U16–U18 basketball players, 30-second-per-region foam rolling produced lower adjusted post-test visual reaction times than...” · 1 claim · 29 September 2026

Evidence for

The trial reports lower adjusted reaction time for 30-second versus 60-second rolling across scoring methods, but no scoring-independent benefit over control.

From Duration-dependent acute effects of foam rolling on dominant-hand visual reaction time in male youth basketball players: A randomized controlled study Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted
The quoted passage directly supports the lower reaction time versus 60 seconds and the absence of a scoring-independent benefit over passive rest.

From Duration-dependent acute effects of foam rolling on dominant-hand visual reaction time in male youth basketball players: A randomized controlled study Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

Evidence against

None.

Qualifications

The result is a single-session, male youth-basketball comparison with unequal timing across groups and scoring-sensitive control contrasts, limiting generalization and practical recommendations.

From Duration-dependent acute effects of foam rolling on dominant-hand visual reaction time in male youth basketball players: A randomized controlled study Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

Adds sample composition, jurisdiction, acute-only design, group denominators, timing imbalance, and scoring sensitivity.

Suppressed as dependent

Evidence	Group	Kept instead
ef9048a5		cd0ab333

Inferences

Concluded from

None.

Used as a premise in

None.

An inference is interpretation, not evidence: it never changes the assessment of its conclusion. Each premise is a claim with its own evidence.

Threads

None. Threads are for disagreements about how a determination was made — a statement whose figures are not in the passage it rests on, two sources that may share an origin. Something about the world belongs in the evidence above.

Claim edges

None. Edges are stored and displayed; v0.1 does not propagate probability across them.

Review checklist

Review checks: 1 of 4

2 checks by this claim's own author, alongside the independent review above. 1 QUALIFIER CHECK · 1 EVIDENCE VERIFICATION. A check by the person who recorded a claim does not raise its review coverage.

Check	Done	By
qualifiers reviewed	no
opposing search done	no
independence reviewed	no
primary source reviewed	yes	d7ef227f, 984e0fb2, cd0ab333

Summary

Supported. The main support is: The trial reports lower adjusted reaction time for 30-second versus 60-second rolling across scoring methods, but no scoring-independent benefit over control. a971429b

1 further item repeats the same origin and is not independent evidence. ef9048a5

Qualifier: The result is a single-session, male youth-basketball comparison with unequal timing across groups and scoring-sensitive control contrasts, limiting generalization and practical recommendations. e5a3e63b

Review checks: 1 of 4. coverage:87728382-57fb-80c3-bedd-a9e86c3e0868

Generated by stub-v0.1; every sentence cites graph ids.

Contribution history

seq	event	detail
16166	APPENDED
16167	ACCEPT	AUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
16172	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
16216	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
25771	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)