Variability in the Identification and Reporting of Overuse Injuries Among Sports Injury Surveillance Data Collectors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study examined variability in identifying and reporting overuse injuries among Certified Athletic Trainers (ATs). METHODS: This cross-sectional study of ATs participating in the National Collegiate Athletic Association's Injury Surveillance Program, utilized a novel online-only survey, consisting of seven hypothetical clinical scenarios representing various clinical presentations including overuse and acute elements. Participants reported clinical opinions regarding the role overuse played in each scenario (major contributor, not a major contributor, not enough information) and probability (0-100%) of classifying each scenario as having an overuse injury mechanism, then completed open-ended questions addressing their decision-making process. RESULTS: 74 ATs (25%) completed the survey. Six of the seven scenarios generated discordance in responses among the participating ATs. Variability in AT decisions involved: the progression of injury, duration of symptoms, and activity at time of injury. CONCLUSION: Developing a formalized definition of overuse injury may improve consistency and standardize methods for identifying and reporting overuse injuries within injury research.
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.
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 | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it