Feasibility of Injury Reporting Via Text Messaging in Club Sport Settings: A Prospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A novel technique of short message service (SMS), or text message, has examined injuries in elite handball and female football and community Australian football with a response rate of over 75%. The purpose of this study was to determine if text message is a feasible method of prospectively collecting injury density data in club sports teams in the United States. Participants received a weekly text message with four questions asking about pain and participation in the past week. If the participant indicated pain in the past week, a follow-up phone interview was conducted to determine the nature of the pain/injury. The overall text message response rate was 89.8%; there were 281 responses out of 313 participant contacts over the 12-week study period. Semi-structured follow-up phone interviews were completed for 37 of the 55 reports of pain that were indicated through text message response, resulting in further injury information for 65.5% of injuries. Incidence density of reporting pain over the 12-week study was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.68–1.15) per 1,000 min of activity. In this sample, text message response rates were similar to previous studies; however, we did lose nine (25.7%) participants to follow-up.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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".