The relationship between childhood behaviour disorders and unintentional injury events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the controversy regarding the existence of a relationship between behavioural disorders and unintentional injuries in children. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort analysis of children between six and 19 years of age, who were diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) only (n=955), ADHD plus conduct problems (CP) (n=160), or CP only (n=234), were compared with a nondisorder group of children (n=21,308) for unintentional injury events resulting in a physician office or emergency room visit, or hospitalization. RESULTS: The risk of an injury event was greater among children with a behaviour disorder diagnosis and severity of injury varied among the behaviour disorder groups. Children with ADHD were the only disorder group at increased risk for all three injury outcomes. Children with a comorbid diagnosis were at a greater risk for both minor and more serious emergency injury visits, and children with CP only were at greatest risk for the most serious injuries (hospital admission). CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide further support that children with ADHD are at an increased risk for not only hospitalized injury events but also minor injury events. In addition, these findings provide evidence that serious injuries are more likely to be experienced by children with CP.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".