A comparison of injuries, crashes, and outcomes for pediatric rear occupants in traffic motor vehicle collisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study was initiated was initiated to describe pediatric rear-occupant motor vehicle collision (MVC) injuries, including injury patterns and outcomes as well as characteristics associated with severe injury to the head and abdomen. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of severely injured (Injury Severity Score [ISS] > 12) pediatric (age <18 years) patients involved in a traffic MVC as a rear occupant and treated at one of two Ontario trauma centers (2001-2010) was studied was studied. Demographic, injury, crash and outcome data were obtained from the trauma registries. Data were statistically compared by two pediatric age groups: children (0-8 years; requiring a child or booster seat) versus adolescents (9-17 years; requiring a lap-shoulder belt). RESULTS: There were 36 children (34%) and 70 adolescents (66%) severely injured as rear occupants in MVCs. Despite similar ISS (p = 0.716) and mortality rates (p = 0.680) between age groups, there were significant differences in injury patterns and risk factors. Children were more likely to have severe head injuries (78% vs. 39%, p < 0.001) associated with a lack of an age-appropriate child restraints (odds ratio [OR], 3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-10.8; p = 0.029), middle seating (OR, 6.2; 95% CI, 1.5-26.1; p = 0.013), and side-impact crashes (p = 0.007). Adolescents were more likely to have severe abdominal injuries (23% vs. 6%, p < 0.001) associated with the use of lap-shoulder belts (OR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.1-13.3; p = 0.034), single-vehicle MVCs (p = 0.007), and vehicle extrications (p = 0.035). CONCLUSION: While safer than the front seat for children, additional study is needed on the restraint systems and the potential for injury to pediatric rear occupants in an MVC. Our data suggest that pediatric age groups differ in injuries, risk factors, and MVC impacts. Recommendations for improved protection of child occupants and preferred seating positions are required. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level III.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".