MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086477515 · doi:10.2105/ajph.92.8.1352

Autopsy Study of Motorcyclist Fatalities: The Effect of the 1992 Maryland Motorcycle Helmet Use Law

2002· article· en· W2086477515 on OpenAlexaff
Kimberly M. Auman, Joseph A. Kufera, Michael F. Ballesteros, John E. Smialek, Patricia C. Dischinger

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Public Health · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsOffice of the Chief Medical Examiner
FundersCenters for Disease Control and Prevention
KeywordsInjury preventionOccupational safety and healthPoison controlMedicineOdds ratioSuicide preventionConfidence intervalHuman factors and ergonomicsCase fatality rateEnvironmental healthMedical emergencyPublic healthLawForensic engineeringDemographyEngineeringPopulationPolitical scienceNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the impact of Maryland's all-rider motorcycle helmet law (enacted on October 1, 1992) on preventing deaths and traumatic brain injuries among motorcyclists. METHODS: Statewide motorcyclist fatalities occurring during seasonally comparable 33-month periods immediately preceding and following enactment of the law were compared. RESULTS: The motorcyclist fatality rate dropped from 10.3 per 10 000 registered motorcycles prelaw to 4.5 postlaw despite almost identical numbers of registered motorcycles. Motorcyclists wearing helmets had a lower risk of traumatic brain injury than those not wearing helmets (odds ratio = 0.31, 95% confidence interval = 0.14, 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Maryland's controversial motorcycle helmet law appears to be an effective public health policy and may be responsible for saving many lives.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 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

Citations60
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Public HealthSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207