Sudden infant deaths in sitting devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As episodes of decreased oxygenation levels have been recorded in premature infants placed in car seats, it is believed that these infants are at risk of life-threatening events and death. No data on the prevalence of such infant deaths are available. The aim of our study was to determine the incidence of sudden deaths in infants occurring in sitting devices in a whole population and to determine whether premature infants account for a disproportionate number of these deaths. DESIGN: Retrospective population-based cohort study reviewing all cases of sudden unexpected death in infants between birth and 1 year of age that occurred in the province of Quebec between January 1991 and December 2000. RESULTS: Of the 508 deaths reviewed, 409 were unexplained and 99 were explained after investigation. Seventeen deaths occurred in a sitting device, of which 10 were unexplained. There was no excess of premature infants dying. However, there was an excess of infants of less than 1 month of age found to have died in a sitting position in the unexplained death group. In addition, three infants who died in a sitting position had an increased risk of upper airway obstruction. CONCLUSION: Although very few deaths occurred in car seats, our results suggest that caution should be used when placing younger infants in car seats and similar sitting devices, whether the infants have been born prematurely or not. We also recommend that more attention be given to infants at increased risk of upper airway obstruction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".