MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of Airbag Deployment on Head Injuries in Severe Passenger Motor Vehicle Crashes in Ontario, Canada

2003· article· en· W2078018061 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tanya Charyk Stewart, Murray J. Girotti, Vineet Nikore, Joyce Williamson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirbagLogistic regressionMedicinePoison controlOdds ratioInjury Severity ScoreInjury preventionSoftware deploymentSeat beltConfoundingOccupational safety and healthPhysical medicine and rehabilitationEmergency medicineEngineeringAutomotive engineeringInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to identify and analyze factors contributing to both airbag deployment and resulting head injuries (HIs) and to quantify the effect of airbag deployment on head injuries, in terms of odds of head injury and severity, in severe motor vehicle collisions (MVCs). METHODS: Data were derived from severely injured (Injury Severity Score [ISS] > 12) drivers treated at Ontario's lead trauma hospitals (n = 1,272), and included all MVC driver deaths in the province (n = 665) from 1997-98. We conducted an epidemiologic description and a case-control study to compare drivers with and without HIs. Statistical analysis included Pearson's chi2, Wilcoxon rank-sum, and multiple logistic regression tests. RESULTS: Seventy-one percent of drivers were men, peaking in the 25- to 34-year age group. The most common impact involved multiple vehicles (62%) approaching each other. Overall, 59% of crashes had a frontal location of impact. HIs were significantly associated with a lower age (median, 36 vs. 43 years), seat belt use (53% vs. 59%), and airbag deployment (7% vs. 10%), with higher ISS (median, 34 vs. 22), ejection (20% vs. 10%), and mortality rate (44% vs. 35%). Airbag deployment was associated with higher age and seat belt use, and lower ISS, ejection, and deaths. Importantly, there were fewer HIs with the deployment of an airbag (64% vs. 73%) and a lower severity of HI. When logistic regression was used to control for the effects of possible confounders, airbag deployment was not statistically associated with one's odds of HI (odds ratio, 0.827; 95% confidence interval, 0.560-1.220), but ISS, age, and ejection were. CONCLUSION: Airbag deployment did not significantly lower a driver's odds of head injury in a severe MVC, but it did significantly lower the severity of head injury. This is a significant finding, given that 72% of our study population sustained a head injury and the importance of lowering the severity of these head injuries in terms of patients' ultimate outcome. The most important factor associated with head injuries was ejection, which nearly doubled a driver's odds of head injury (odds ratio, 1.759; 95% confidence interval, 1.201-2.577). This reinforces the supplementary protective effect of an airbag and that "buckling up" and keeping occupants in the vehicle is of primary importance in the prevention of head injuries.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.758

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.272 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations24
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical CareSame topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207