Risks, Epidemics, and Prevention Measures of Infectious Diseases in Major Sports Events: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Major sports events are the focus of the world. However, the gathering of crowds during these events creates huge risks of infectious diseases transmission, posing a significant public health threat. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically review the epidemiological characteristics and prevention measures of infectious diseases at major sports events. METHODS: The procedure of this scoping review followed Arksey and O'Malley's five-step methodological framework. Electronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase, were searched systematically. The general information (ie, publication year, study type) of each study, sports events' features (ie, date and host location), infectious diseases' epidemiological characteristics (ie, epidemics, risk factors), prevention measures, and surveillance paradigm were extracted, categorized, and summarized. RESULTS: A total of 24,460 articles were retrieved from the databases and 358 studies were included in the final data synthesis based on selection criteria. A rapid growth of studies was found over recent years. The number of studies investigating epidemics and risk factors for sports events increased from 16/254 (6.3%) before 2000 to 201/254 (79.1%) after 2010. Studies focusing on prevention measures of infectious diseases accounted for 85.0% (238/280) of the articles published after 2010. A variety of infectious diseases have been reported, including respiratory tract infection, gastrointestinal infection, vector-borne infection, blood-borne infection, and water-contact infection. Among them, respiratory tract infections were the most concerning diseases (250/358, 69.8%). Besides some routine prevention measures targeted at risk factors of different diseases, strengthening surveillance was highlighted in the literature. The surveillance system appeared to have gone through three stages of development, including manual archiving, network-based systems, and automated intelligent platforms. CONCLUSIONS: This critical summary and collation of previous empirical evidence is meaningful to provide references for holding major sports events. It is essential to improve the surveillance techniques for timely detection of the emergence of epidemics and to improve risk perception in future practice.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".