Epidemiology of work‐related traumatic brain injury: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to describe the burden and risk factors of work-related traumatic brain injury (wrTBI) and evaluate methodological quality of existing literature on wrTBI. METHODS: A search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) was conducted to identify articles published between 1980 and 2013 using a combination of terms for work, TBI, and epidemiology, without geographical limitations. RESULTS: Ninety-eight studies were included in this review, of which 24 specifically focused on wrTBI. In general, male workers, those in the youngest and oldest age groups, and those working in the primary (e.g., agriculture, forestry, mining) or construction industries were more likely to sustain wrTBI, with falls being the most common mechanism of injury. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified workers at highest risk of wrTBI, with implications for prevention efforts. Future research of better methodological quality is needed to provide a more complete picture of the epidemiology of wrTBI.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.027 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".