Risk factors for unintentional injuries due to falls in children aged 0–6 years: a systematic review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify risk factors for unintentional injuries due to falls in children aged 0-6 years. DESIGN: A systematic review of the literature. METHODS: Electronic databases from 1966 to March 2005 were comprehensively searched to identify empirical research that evaluated risk factors for unintentional injuries due to falls in children aged 0-6 years and included a comparison group. RESULTS: 14 studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies varied by the type of fall injury that was considered (ie, bunk bed, stairway, playground or infant walker) and with respect to the quality of evidence. In general, major risk factors for the incidence or severity of injuries due to falls in children included age of the child, sex, height of the fall, type of surface, mechanism (dropped, stairway or using a walker), setting (day care v home care) and socioeconomic status. CONCLUSION: Despite a high burden, few controlled studies have examined the risk and protective factors for injuries due to falls in children aged 0-6 years. The only study to examine falls from a population health perspective suggests that age, sex and poverty are independent risk factors for injuries due to falls in children.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it