Infant injuries from child restraint safety seat misuse at British Columbia Children’s Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Child restraint safety seats (CRS) are used to prevent injuries or deaths among child passengers involved in a motor vehicle crash. When used outside of a motor vehicle, CRS use could potentially place an infant at risk of injury. The objective of the current study was to describe the proportion of CRS misuse injuries among infants <12 months old and associated factors presenting to the British Columbia (BC) Children's Hospital Emergency Department over 5 years (1997-2002). METHODS: The Canadian Hospital Injury Reporting and Prevention Program (CHIRPP) was the source for the emergency department injury surveillance data used in the present study. BC Children's Hospital is the participating CHIRPP site in British Columbia. A search of individual level patient records was conducted to capture all injuries from CRS misuse taking place during the study period using a predetermined code for 'child car seat-related injuries'. A retrospective analysis of 87 infants <12 months old, who presented at BC Children's Hospital for CRS-related injuries between January 1997 and December 2002 was performed in order to describe the epidemiologic and background factors related to injury occurrence. RESULTS: Infants aged 0-4 months accounted for approximately 59.7% of cases (52/87). Among all infants, falls were a common mechanism of injury resulting from CRS misuse (98.8%, 86/87). Falls from elevated surfaces (e.g. chairs, tables, counters) were also common among infants presenting to the emergency departments and accounted for 43% of all falls (37/86). CONCLUSIONS: Injury prevention efforts should be focused on reducing CRS outside the motor vehicle setting and preventing placement of the CRS at an elevated surface. Educating caregivers on the dangers of falls resulting from CRS misuse in a variety of care settings is also recommended.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".