MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Children in Side-Impact Motor Vehicle Crashes: Seating Positions and Injury Mechanisms

2004· article· en· W2109067335 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInjury preventionSittingPoison controlConfidence intervalCrashworthinessOccupational safety and healthProspective cohort studyCase fatality rateCohortCohort studyPediatricsMedical emergencySurgeryCrashEnvironmental healthPopulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to describe the injury mechanisms of children involved in side-impact car crashes, particularly as these relate to seating position, and to estimate the danger of the near-side seating position. METHODS: A prospective two-center study of children involved in severe car crashes in Canada was conducted as well as a retrospective cohort study of children involved in crashes reported in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the National Automotive Sampling System: Crashworthiness Data System (NASS CDS). RESULTS: Children sitting at the side the car was struck (near-side position) sustained severe head, trunk, and limb injuries. Many of these injuries were attributable to direct intrusion, but some occurred without direct damage to the occupant compartment. Center-seat and far-side occupants had severe injuries only when unrestrained. Injury severity scores were higher for children seated on the near side, and this was statistically significant (p = 0.024) The analysis of Fatality Analysis Reporting System data showed that the risk of fatality was higher for children seated in the near-side position than for those in the center-seat position. The fatality risk ratio was 2.53 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.08-3.07) for restrained children and 1.84 (95% CI, 1.57-2.17) for unrestrained children. Analysis of the NASS-CDS data showed that for restrained children, severe injury (ISS > or = 16) was more common among those on the near side (7 per 1,000 children) than among those in the center seat (2 per 1,000) or on the far-side seat (1 per 1,000) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Severe injuries to near-side occupants occurred in both the presence and absence of compartment intrusion. A typical pattern of head, chest, and extremity injury similar to that seen among child pedestrians was observed among near-side child occupants in side-impact crashes. The center seat was statistically safer than the near-side seat, particularly for restrained child occupants. Scene information may be useful to trauma teams for the prediction of injury type and location. Avoiding intrusion and preventing the occupant from striking the vehicle wall are both important to side-impact protection for children. Improvement of the vehicle safety cage may protect against intrusion injuries. Seating two child occupants in inboard seating positions may provide additional protection against intrusion injuries, and also may protect against nonintrusion 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.

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)0.000
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 score0.530
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.314
Teacher spread0.302 · 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