Sledding Injuries in Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department in a Northern City
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Sledding is a common recreational activity in northern communities. The objective of this study was to examine the frequency and nature of sledding injuries (SIs) in patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs). METHODS: The data were derived from a cohort of patients treated at all five EDs in an urban Canadian health region over a two-year period. Following chart review, consenting patients were interviewed by telephone about their sledding activities and the circumstances surrounding the injury. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-eight patients were correctly coded as having SIs, with 212 patients (65%) reached during the follow-up survey. The median age of those with SIs was 12 years (IQR = 8, 21), and 206 (59%) were male. Injury rates peaked in the 10--14-year age group (87/100,000) for boys and in the 5--9-year age group (75/100,000) for girls. Most patients stated they were drivers (75%), fewer than half were thrown from the sled (42%), and fewer than half (44%) were sledding on community-designated sledding hills at the time of injury. Injuries to the lower extremity (32%), upper extremity (31%), and head (13%) were most common. Thirty-seven (11%) patients with SIs were admitted to hospital vs 4% of patients with other sports/recreation injuries (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Sledding injuries are common and potentially serious wintertime injuries in northern communities, involving primarily younger patients, with a large pre-adolescent group. However, older sledders (>20 years) have poorer outcomes (hospitalization, lost time from work/school) than their younger counterparts. The SIs treated in the ED appear to lead to hospitalization more frequently than other types of sport/recreation injury, and injury prevention strategies appear warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".