Orchard Sports Injury and Illness Classification System (OSIICS) Version 15
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sports medicine (injury and illnesses) requires distinct coding systems because the International Classification of Diseases is insufficient for sports medicine coding. The Orchard Sports Injury and Illness Classification System (OSIICS) is one of two sports medicine coding systems recommended by the International Olympic Committee. Regular updates of coding systems are required. METHODS: For Version 15, updates for mental health conditions in athletes, sports cardiology, concussion sub-types, infectious diseases, and skin and eye conditions were considered particularly important. RESULTS: Recommended codes were added from a recent International Olympic Committee consensus statement on mental health conditions in athletes. Two landmark sports cardiology papers were used to update a more comprehensive list of sports cardiology codes. Rugby union protocols on head injury assessment were used to create additional concussion codes. CONCLUSION: It is planned that OSIICS Version 15 will be translated into multiple new languages in a timely fashion to facilitate international accessibility. The large number of recently published sport-specific and discipline-specific consensus statements on athlete surveillance warrant regular updating of OSIICS.
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 | 0.024 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".