MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970625911 · doi:10.1097/ta.0b013e3181e99877

Where Should We Implement Emergency Department Secondary Prevention Programs for Youth Injured by Violence?

2010· article· en· W1970625911 on OpenAlexaffabout
Avery B. Nathens

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGun Ownership and Violence Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Association of Emergency PhysiciansUniversity of TorontoToronto Public HealthSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrauma centerEmergency departmentMedicineConfidence intervalOdds ratioPopulationLogistic regressionCohortInjury preventionEmergency medicinePoison controlRetrospective cohort studyInjury Severity ScoreOccupational safety and healthMedical emergencyPsychiatrySurgeryEnvironmental healthInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Victims of violence are likely to become repeat victims of violence. Emergency department-based secondary prevention initiatives have been proposed to help break the cycle of violence for these youth. Trauma centers, by nature of their designation, are often charged with the responsibility of developing these prevention initiatives. We hypothesize that the majority of youth who are injured by violence are treated in nontrauma centers. Given the goal is to prevent recurrent injury, trauma center-based initiatives may be misdirected. METHODS: We used a retrospective population-based cohort study design in the province of Ontario to evaluate the type of facility (trauma center vs. nontrauma center) where injured youth (aged 15-24 years) presented for assessment after intentional injury. The National Ambulatory Care Reporting System database was used to identify all subjects during the years 2003-2007. Intentional injury was analyzed through E-codes and hospital identifiers were linked to trauma center status. Descriptive statistics and multiple logistic regression were performed to evaluate demographic and injury characteristics predictive of patients presenting to a trauma center. RESULTS: The cohort included 51,487 patients presenting to 193 hospitals in Ontario. The mean age was 19.4 years and 80% were men. Eighty percent (80%) of youth injured by violence were treated at nontrauma centers. Patients with injuries caused by blunt objects (odds ratio [OR], 1.51 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 1.39-1.65]), stab wounds (OR, 1.62 [95% CI: 1.50-1.75]), and gunshot wounds (OR, 4.18 [95% CI: 3.21-5.45]) were more likely to attend trauma centers than those with injuries because of bodily force. Patients who attended trauma centers were more likely to be admitted (OR, 3.58 [95% CI: 3.25-3.96]) or die in hospital (OR, 2.18 [95% CI: 1.12-4.26]). CONCLUSIONS: Given the vast majority of patients are not seen at trauma centers, any prevention initiatives located here will not achieve the goals of preventing recurrent injury on a population basis. Secondary prevention initiatives should be implemented and evaluated in nontrauma centers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score0.732

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical CareSame topicGun Ownership and Violence ResearchFrench-language works237,207