MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015257121 · doi:10.1080/15389580903390623

Do Light Truck Vehicles (LTV) Impose Greater Risk of Pedestrian Injury Than Passenger Cars? A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review

2010· review· en· W2015257121 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTraffic Injury Prevention · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoison controlMeta-analysisInjury preventionSystematic reviewOccupational safety and healthPedestrianPsycINFOOdds ratioMedicineHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionMEDLINEEnvironmental healthTransport engineeringEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Pedestrian crashes present a growing challenge for public health trauma and road safety researchers around the world. They are associated with substantial morbidity, mortality, and cost, yet there is an international lack of published work on the topic, especially when compared with vehicle occupant safety studies. Our review attempts to quantify the risk of fatal injury among vulnerable road users. The specific objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to quantify and compare the impact of light truck vehicles (LTVs) versus conventional cars on pedestrian fatal injury. METHODS: A protocol was developed using methods of the Cochrane Collaboration. We conducted a search for the studies in bibliographic databases that included ATI (Australian Transport Index); Cochrane Injuries Group Specialized Register; EMBASE; ERIC; MEDLINE; National Research Register; PsycINFO; Road Res (ARRB); SIGLE; Science (and Social Science) Citation Index; TRANSPORT (NTIS, TRIS, TRANSDOC, IRRD). Web sites of traffic and road accident research bodies, government agencies, and injury prevention organizations were searched for grey literature. Reference lists from selected papers or topic reviews were scanned for potentially relevant papers. RESULTS: Our initial search identified 878 potentially eligible studies. After thorough review by three of the researchers a total of 12 studies were included in the systematic review, 11 of which were included in the meta-analysis. The overall pooled odds ratio for the risk of fatal injury in pedestrian collisions with LTVs compared to conventional cars was odds ratio 1.54, 95 percent confidence interval 1.15-1.93, p = 0.001. Thus, the risk for pedestrians of sustaining fatal injury is 50 percent greater in collisions with LTVs than in collisions with conventional cars. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that LTVs pose a greater risk of pedestrian injury death compared to conventional cars. These findings have important implications for the automotive industry and the safety of vulnerable road users.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.265 · 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