Review of the Local Organizing Committee (LOC) medical services during the 12th FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) in Doha, Qatar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One of the primary roles of Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) is to promote athlete health. The planning and delivery of major international event medical services is carried out in collaboration with the Local Organizing Committee Medical Commission (LOCMC). Aspetar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital provided the medical services to the 12th FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) creating a unique opportunity for collaboration with FINA. AIM: The purpose of this paper is to review the planning and delivery of medical services and athlete health promotion projects during the 12th FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) to facilitate the planning of future sporting events of this size and scope. METHODS: The 12th FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) hosted 974 athletes from 166 countries. The LOC medical team recorded all medical encounters-newly incurred (or acute exacerbations of chronic) injuries and illnesses as well as follow-up consultations. RESULTS: More than 90% of teams did not travel with a team physician and relied on the LOCMC for diagnosis and treatment of injuries and illnesses in athletes and accredited team officials. The LOC medical team had a total of 554 medical encounters: 385 therapy, 34 athlete injury, 65 athlete illness and 70 non-athlete encounters. CONCLUSIONS: The LOCMC in collaboration with FINA delivered comprehensive medical services to athletes, officials and spectators attending the 12th FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m). This review paper provides information relevant to the planning and delivery of LOCMC medical services for future international swimming events contributing to the FINA objective of promoting athlete health.
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".