Injury and illness in aquatic sport: how high is the risk? A comparison of results from three FINA World Championships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epidemiological information on injury/illness is required to develop effective injury prevention strategies. AIM: To assess the frequency and characteristics of injuries/illnesses (1) in the 4 weeks prior to and (2) during the Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) World Championships 2015 compared with 2013 and 2009. METHOD: (1) Athletes answered a retrospective questionnaire, and (2) the medical staff reported injuries/illnesses prospectively during the championships. RESULTS: (1) A quarter of responding athletes reported symptoms in the 4 weeks prior to the championships. More than half of all affected athletes presented with substantial severity, 80% took medication, 70% had overuse injuries and 30% did not modify their training regime despite symptoms. At the start of the championships, 70% of affected participants were still symptomatic. (2) During the championships, injury and illness incidence was 12.9 per 100 athletes. The most common injuries were shoulder sprains (5.7%) and muscle cramps of the lower back (5.7%). The most common illnesses were infections of the respiratory (33.9%) and gastrointestinal tract (23.5%). Risk factors included discipline and age, but not gender. Incidence was highest in athletes competing in high diving (HD), water polo (WP) and diving (DIV) for injuries, and WP and swimming (SW) for illnesses. The significantly higher incidence of injuries and illnesses at the FINA World Championships 2015 compared with 2013 and 2009 was most probably due to a similarly improved response rate of the medical staff. CONCLUSIONS: In aquatic sports, surveillance and health promotion should focus on prevention of out-of-competition overuse injuries and athlete education.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".