Are injuries spatially related? Join–count spatial autocorrelation for small-area injury analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To present a geographic information systems (GIS) method for exploring the spatial pattern of injuries and to demonstrate the utility of using this method in conjunction with classic ecological models of injury patterns. DESIGN: Profiles of patients' socioeconomic status (SES) were constructed by linking their postal code of residence to the census dissemination area that encompassed its location. Data were then integrated into a GIS, enabling the analysis of neighborhood contiguity and SES on incidence of injury. SETTING: Data for this analysis (2001-2006) were obtained from the British Columbia Trauma Registry. Neighborhood SES was calculated using the Vancouver Area Neighborhood Deprivation Index. Spatial analysis was conducted using a join-count spatial autocorrelation algorithm. PATIENTS: Male and female patients over the age of 18 and hospitalized from severe injury (Injury Severity Score >12) resulting from an assault or intentional self-harm and included in the British Columbia Trauma Registry were analyzed. RESULTS: Male patients injured by assault and who resided in adjoining census areas were observed 1.3 to 5 times more often than would be expected under a random spatial pattern. Adjoining neighborhood clustering was less visible for residential patterns of patients hospitalized with injuries sustained from self-harm. A social gradient in assault injury rates existed separately for men and neighborhood SES, but less than would be expected when stratified by age, gender, and neighborhood. No social gradient between intentional injury from self-harm and neighborhood SES was observed. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the added utility of integrating GIS technology into injury prevention research. Crucial information on the associated social and environmental influences of intentional injury patterns may be under-recognized if a spatial analysis is not also conducted. The join-count spatial autocorrelation is an ideal approach for investigating the interconnectedness of injury patterns that are rare and occur in only a small percentage of the population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".