MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153455276

Seat-belt injuries in children involved in motor vehicle crashes.

2005· article· en· W2153455276 on OpenAlexaff
Miriam Santschi, Vincent Échavé, Nathalie McFadden, Claude Cyr

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSeat beltDistractionPoison controlInjury preventionEcchymosisOccupational safety and healthPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryMedical emergency
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of seat belts in reducing deaths from motor vehicle crashes is well documented. A unique association of injuries has emerged in adults and children with the use of seat belts. The "seat-belt syndrome" refers to the spectrum of injuries associated with lap-belt restraints, particularly flexion-distraction injuries to the spine (Chance fractures). METHODS: We describe the injuries sustained by 8 children, including 2 sets of twins, in 3 different motor vehicle crashes. RESULTS: All children were rear seat passengers wearing lap or 3-point restraints. All had abdominal lap-belt ecchymosis and multiple abdominal injuries due to the common mechanism of seat-belt compression with hyperflexion and distraction during deceleration. Five of the children had lumbar spine fractures and 4 remained permanently paraplegic. CONCLUSIONS: These incidents illustrate the need for acute awareness of the complete spectrum of intra-abdominal and spinal injuries in restrained pediatric passengers in motor vehicle crashes and for rear seat restraints that include shoulder belts with the ability to adjust them to fit smaller passengers, including older 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 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.238
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations68
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207