MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158218717 · doi:10.1177/0009922814526977

Serious Impact of Handlebar Injuries

2014· article· en· W2158218717 on OpenAlexafffund
Hannah Cherniawsky, Ioana Bratu, Tara Rankin, William Sevcik

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Pediatrics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAbdominal Trauma and Injuries
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersFaculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of AlbertaUniversity of AlbertaPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsMedicinePoison controlInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionOccupational safety and healthMedical emergencyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Injuries from bicycles is a leading cause of trauma in children. We sought to investigate the epidemiology of bicycle handlebar injuries. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of bicycle trauma treated at our institution was preformed. RESULTS: A total of 462 children younger than 17 years had bicycle trauma. Abdominal handlebar injuries, representing 9% of bicycle injuries, contributed to 19% of all internal organ injuries, and 45.4% of solid, 87.5% of hollow, 66.6% of vascular or lymphatic, and 100% of pancreatic injuries. Handlebar injuries were 10 times more likely to cause severe injury, yet more than half of the children were misdiagnosed at their initial presentation. Delayed diagnosis and longer hospital stays were observed in handlebar injuries to the abdomen. CONCLUSION: Physicians should be aware of the serious impact of bicycle handlebar injury to the abdomen. The mechanism alone should raise the suspicion of internal organ injury, and timely imaging and surgical consultation.

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)0.003
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 score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.378 · 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

Citations21
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical PediatricsSame topicAbdominal Trauma and InjuriesFrench-language works237,207