MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W183059663

Long-term mortality following trauma: 10 year follow-up in a population-based sample of injured adults.

2005· article· en· W183059663 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cate M Cameron, David M. Purdie, E. V. Kliewer, Rod McClure

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortPopulationCohort studyDemographyEpidemiologyInjury Severity ScoreMortality ratePoison controlInjury preventionStandardized mortality ratioEmergency medicinePediatricsSurgeryInternal medicineEnvironmental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to quantify trauma-related mortality in injured adults over 10 years postinjury. METHODS: A population-based matched cohort study used linked administrative data from Manitoba, Canada, to identify an inception cohort (1988-1991) of hospitalized trauma cases (ICD-9-CM 800-959.9) aged 18-64 years (n = 18,210) and a matched noninjured comparison group (n = 18,210). Mortality outcomes were obtained by linking the two cohorts with the Manitoba Population Registry for a period of 10 years postinjury. RESULTS: The adjusted all-cause mortality rate ratio (MRR) was 7.29 (95% CI 4.53-11.74) for the 60 days immediately postinjury. The MRRs ranged between 1.17 and 2.41 for the remainder of the 10 year follow-up period. The index injury was estimated to be responsible for 41% of all recorded deaths in the injured cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Estimates of the total mortality burden, based on the early inpatient period alone, substantially underestimates the true burden from injury.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations58
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicTrauma and Emergency Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207