MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065232568 · doi:10.1080/17457300.2013.842594

Epidemiology of unintentional child injuries in the South-East Asia Region: a systematic review

2013· review· en· W2065232568 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Puspa Raj Pant, Elizabeth Towner, Paul Pilkington, Matthew Ellis

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRoyal Society
KeywordsInjury preventionMedicinePoison controlOccupational safety and healthSuicide preventionEpidemiologyEnvironmental healthHuman factors and ergonomicsPopulationDeveloping countryQuarter (Canadian coin)Medical emergencyGeographyEconomic growthPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All the 11 members of the South-East Asia Region (SEAR) of the World Health Organization are categorised as low- and middle-income countries. This region has over a quarter of the world's total population but comprises about one-third of the world's unintentional injury-related deaths. There is a paucity of good-quality mortality and morbidity data from most of these countries. This is the first systematic review of community-based surveys on child injuries that summarises evidence from child injury studies from the SEAR countries. The included papers reported varying estimates of overall non-fatal unintentional injury rates across the countries, from 15/1000 children in Thailand to as high as 342/1000 children in India. The fatal injury rates were also found to be varying. This review revealed a need for strengthening child injury research using standard methodologies across the region and for promoting the dissemination of the results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Injury Control and Safety PromotionSame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207