MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pediatric Drowning

2005· article· en· W2094719773 on OpenAlexaff
Gino R. Somers, David A. Chiasson, Charles R. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Forensic Medicine & Pathology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenSickKids FoundationUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNear DrowningMedicinePoison controlInjury preventionPediatricsOccupational safety and healthSuicide preventionDemographyMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drowning is a significant cause of childhood mortality in the developed world. Males and preschool-aged children are overrepresented in most series of pediatric drowning. To obtain a better understanding of age- and gender-related factors, a retrospective review of autopsy records over a 20-year period (1984-2003) for cases of drowning (exclusive of bathtub drownings) was performed. Sixty-three consecutive cases of drowning were identified in 45 males and 18 females (ratio 2.5; P = 0.0007). The ages ranged from 9 months to 17 years, and most cases occurred in the 0- to 4-year age group (57%). Boys tended to be older than girls (5 years 9 months versus 4 years 4 months; P = 0.2133). Sites of drowning were open water (48%) and pools (44%), with children drowning in open water being significantly older than those drowning in pools (6 years 6 months versus 4 years 6 months; P = 0.0462). Most boys drowned in open water (53%), whereas most girls drowned in pools (50%). Resuscitation was attempted after the drowning episode in 84% of cases, with children aged 4 years or less having significantly higher rates than older children (P = 0.0346). The present study highlights differences in the pattern of drowning according to age and sex and may aid in developing targeted educational and preventative campaigns.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations23
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Forensic Medicine & PathologySame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207