MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162003959 · doi:10.1136/ip.2008.019471

Unintentional injuries in school-aged children and adolescents: lessons from a systematic review of cohort studies

2009· review· en· W2162003959 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInjury Prevention · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsCommunity Based Research CentreUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohortMedicineCohort studyInjury preventionEpidemiologyPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionOccupational safety and healthInclusion (mineral)Environmental healthProspective cohort studyGerontologyPsychologySurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To critically synthesise current knowledge of the patterns of injuries and risk factors for injury in school-aged children, to summarise the evidence and support effective child injury prevention initiatives. DESIGN: Systematic review. Selection criteria and METHODS: Prospective cohort studies reporting unintentional injuries in healthy children aged 5-18 years were identified by searching 15 electronic databases and additional grey literature sources. A narrative synthesis was conducted of papers meeting quality criteria, with risk factors analysed at individual, family and environmental levels. Limitations of existing evidence were considered. RESULTS: 44 papers from 18 different cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. There were broad and consistent patterns of injury across time and place. Male sex, psychological, behavioural and risk-taking behaviour problems, having a large number of siblings, and a young mother were all associated with increased injury occurrence across more than one cohort and setting. CONCLUSIONS: Descriptive epidemiology and risk factors for injury were derived from prospective cohort studies, but few studies used the full potential of their design. Opportunities to use repeated measures to assess temporal changes in injury occurrence, and the exploration of risk factors, particularly those related to the child's environment, have rarely been undertaken. Few studies were conducted in low/middle-income countries where the burden of injury is greatest. These findings should be considered when planning future research and prevention initiatives.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.373 · 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