MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030015922 · doi:10.1136/ip.2008.020495

Intentional injuries among Ugandan youth: a trauma registry analysis

2010· article· en· W2030015922 on OpenAlexaff
Milton Mutto, Ronald Lett, Stephen Lawoko, Catherine Nansamba, Leif Svan­ström

Bibliographic record

VenueInjury Prevention · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsCanadian Society for International Health
FundersWorld Bank Group
KeywordsPoison controlOccupational safety and healthForensic engineeringInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionMedical emergencyMedicinePsychologyEngineeringPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To determine intentional injury burden, incident characteristics, and outcomes among Ugandan youth. METHODS: A cross sectional analysis of trauma registry data from accident and emergency units of five regional referral hospitals was conducted. Data had been prospectively collected from all patients accessing injury care at the five sites between July 2004 and June 2005: youth records were analysed. RESULTS: Intentional injuries among youth victims, especially school-age males, are common in all five regions, constituting 7.3% of their injury burden with a male dominance. Intentional youth victimisation mainly occurred at home, on roads, and in public places; incidents were largely due to blunt force, stabs/cuts, and gunshots in general, although variations in causes were evident depending on age. Intentional injuries among the youth victims often manifested as head, neck, and face injuries: 2% were severe and there were 4%case fatalities at 2 weeks. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Intentional injuries among youth victims, especially school-age males, are important contributors of injury burden in all five sites. Homes, roads, and public places are unsafe for Ugandan youth. Although guns were used in all five sites, less lethal mechanisms (blunt force, stabs/cuts, and burns) are the most common with variations between locations. Incidents involving teenage housewives could reflect underlying problem of domestic violence. Community based studies could be highly informative. Youth should be prioritised for prevention of injuries both in and out of school.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.314 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations17
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInjury PreventionSame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207