Work-related hand fracture injuries in British Columbia, Canada: a population-based BC-linked health data-set study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To define population-based incidence, demographics and claim rates, as well as clinical presentation and claims duration and costs for work-related hand fractures in British Columbia (BC), Canada in 2001. Methods A BC-linked health data-set one-year retrospective review of all reported work-place hand fracture injuries in BC in 2001 with additional evaluation of individual health care and claims data from randomly selected individuals with a compensation claim in 2001. Results There were 14,654 hand fractures, of which 14% (2085) were work related; an annual incidence rate of 11/10,000 workers. Males accounted for 88% (1488/2085) of the fractures and the mean age was 39 (SD: ±12). Only 60% (290/482) of randomly selected people filed a compensation claim. Of these claims, 90% (260) had a validated hand fracture injury, 72% (218) were non-articular and 13% (38) had complex associated tissue injuries. About 69% (180) had no or simple closed reduction, 82% (213) had no additional fixation, 63% (163) were immobilized for at least 21 days and 9% (24) developed a secondary complication that required surgery. Average days off work was 46 (range 0–290) and average claims cost was $5500 CDN (range $145–$56,900). Conclusions Hand fractures are a common workplace injury in BC, with a significant proportion of workers not claiming compensation. These injuries generally presented clinically as simple fractures that were managed conservatively with few complications. Despite this, there was still a significant socioeconomic burden primarily due to lost work-place productivity due to time loss from work. These findings likely reflect similar trends for work-related hand fractures throughout Canada and other countries with similar health care and workers' compensation systems.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".