MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116636822 · doi:10.1136/ip.7.1.46

Injury patterns in rural and urban Uganda

2001· article· en· W2116636822 on OpenAlexaff
Olive Kobusingye, David Guwatudde, Ronald Lett

Bibliographic record

VenueInjury Prevention · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsCanadian Society for International Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental healthMedicineInjury preventionOccupational safety and healthPoison controlPopulationPsychological interventionRural areaSuicide preventionMortality rateIncidence (geometry)DemographySocioeconomicsGeographySurgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To describe and contrast injury patterns in rural and urban Uganda. SETTINGS: One rural and one urban community in Uganda. METHODS: Community health workers interviewed adult respondents in households selected by multistage sampling, using a standardized questionnaire. RESULTS: In the rural setting, 1,673 households, with 7,427 persons, were surveyed. Injuries had an annual mortality rate of 92/100,000 persons, and disabilities a prevalence proportion of 0.7%. In the urban setting 2,322 households, with 10,982 people, were surveyed. Injuries had an annual mortality rate of 217/100,000, and injury disabilities a prevalence proportion of 2.8%. The total incidence of fatal, disabling, and recovered injuries was 116/1,000/year. Leading causes of death were drowning in the rural setting, and road traffic in the city. CONCLUSION: Injuries are a substantial burden in Uganda, with much higher rates than those in most Western countries. The urban population is at a higher risk than the rural population, and the patterns of injury differ. Interventions to control injuries should be a priority in Uganda.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations225
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInjury PreventionSame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207