The spectrum of seat belt syndrome among Canadian children: Results of a two-year population surveillance study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Seat belts have been proven to save lives. However, if they are not properly fitted, 'seat belt syndrome' can occur. The aim of the present study was to describe injuries encountered in Canadian children with seat belt-associated injuries. METHODS: Canadian paediatricians and paediatric subspecialists were surveyed monthly through the Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program. Children younger than 18 years of age who were restrained in motor vehicles at the time of a collision, with abdominal or thoracolumbar spine injuries, were included. The children may have been restrained in child safety seats, booster seats, or two- or three-point seat belts. RESULTS: Twenty-eight children, between two and 16 years of age, with injuries compatible with seat belt syndrome were reported in Canada between September 2003 and August 2005. Although 12 children were younger than eight years of age, only one was restrained in a booster seat and only four of the older children were properly restrained with a three-point seat belt. Twenty-four children had abdominal injuries. Of these, 18 had stomach and/or intestinal injuries and 11 had solid organ injuries. Twelve patients had a spinal fracture, including only five Chance-type fractures. Seven patients presented with paraplegia, and none of them recovered. CONCLUSION: In Canada, over a two-year period, 28 children were reported to have sustained injuries consistent with seat belt syndrome; seven of these children remained paraplegic. These results emphasize the necessity to review restraints in motor vehicles to adequately protect children.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".