Back-over Collisions in Child Pedestrians from the Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the current study was to describe the burden of back-over collisions within the context of other child pedestrian collisions as identified through a pediatric emergency room injury surveillance database. METHODS: Injury data for child pedestrian motor vehicle collisions from 1994 to 2003 were obtained from the Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program (CHIRPP). Back-over collisions involving children under the age of 14 were identified and classified by written narratives. Characteristics of children involved in back-over collisions were described, and for those admitted to hospital, the nature of injury was compared with other types of child pedestrian collisions. RESULTS: There were 4295 child pedestrian motor vehicle collisions reported to CHIRPP during the study time period. Of the 4295 children, 148 (3.4%) were injured in a back-over collision, with 49 (33.1%) of these collisions involving a vehicle backing out of a driveway. Children involved in back-over collisions were significantly younger than those in forward-moving/other collisions; however, almost 50 percent of back-over collisions involved children older than age 4. Children involved in back-over collisions on driveways were significantly younger than those involved in collisions occurring at other locations. Of those admitted to hospital, children in back-over collisions were more likely to sustain injuries to internal organs. Children in back-over collisions were less likely to sustain severe/mild head injuries and hip/leg fractures. CONCLUSIONS: Although back-over collisions represent a small proportion of pedestrian motor vehicle collisions, they tend to involve more severe injuries, as indicated by their admission to hospital. It was found that older children are also at risk of back-over collisions and back-over collisions occur in areas other than driveways. In order to lessen the burden of back-over collisions, interventions must address children of different ages and a variety of locations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».