The vancouver 2010 paralympic winter games medical care programme: facts, figures and recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The medical care programme during Paralympic Winter Games should reflect the particular needs and necessities of Paralympic athletes and their support staff. Objective To characterise in detail the medical encounters at the 2010 Vancouver Paralympic Winter Games in order to improve knowledge or injury and illness patterns for medical providers at future adaptive sports events. Design Prospective (sports) injury epidemiological study. Setting The data collection took place during the Vancouver 2010 Paralympic Winter Games. Participants Data are reported on all persons involved in the Vancouver 2010 Paralympic Winter Games that consulted VANOC Medical Services, with particular emphasis on athlete records (n=502 participating athletes). Interventions Systematic records were held on all medical and physical therapy consultations throughout the duration of the Games. Main outcome measurements Number of patients treated during the 2010 Vancouver Paralympic Winter Games, stratified by accreditation status, injury or illness type and services consulted. Results At the Vancouver 2010 Paralympic Winter Games, more than 2717 medical interventions occurred for injury or illness, of whom 25% were athlete encounters (n=657). Consultations were mainly for minor injury/illness, majority of musculoskeletal nature; with only seven hospitalisations (five athletes) for a total of 24 inpatient days stay (16 days for athletes). 977 pharmacy prescriptions were issued, which in seven cases were followed up with a Therapeutic Use Exemption application. Alpine Ski was responsible for over 50% of the athlete imaging visits and approximately 20% of total imaging visits (n=332). Physical therapy interventions (n=897) primarily addressed back and shoulder structures. Conclusion A critical analysis of the actual findings and an efficient transfer of knowledge indicate the need for a multidisciplinary approach with other functional areas related to the organisation of Paralympic (Winter) Games, as well as for the initiating of longitudinal study to gain further and in-depth knowledge on sport injuries and exercise-induced physiological reactions in Paralympic Athletes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".