Injuries among wheeled shoe users: A comparison with other nonmotorized wheeled activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Nonmotorized wheeled activities are popular among children. However, these activities can result in significant injury if effective injury prevention measures are not taken. Recently, nonmotorized wheeled shoes have become increasingly popular among children. Preliminary research shows that these activities also result in significant injury. The purpose of the present study was to compare the injury profiles of nonmotorized wheeled activities among Canadian children presenting to the emergency department. METHODS: A two-year retrospective study was conducted using data from the Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program database, specific to the Alberta Children's Hospital, Calgary, Alberta. Data were analyzed using cross tabulations of the type and nature of injury, helmet use, age and sex, with type of nonmotorized wheeled activity. RESULTS: The most common mechanism of injury for a nonmotorized wheeled activity was bicycling (66.9%), while wheeled shoe use produced the fewest injuries (2.7%). The upper extremity was the most frequently injured body region in all groups, comprising more than 75% of the injuries in wheeled shoe users and approximately 50% of the injuries in participants of other nonmotorized wheeled activities. Forearm fractures were the most common type of injury. Wheeled shoe users had the greatest proportion of forearm fractures. Helmet use was most prevalent in bicyclists (84.6%) and least prevalent in wheeled shoe users (4.7%). DISCUSSION: Nonmotorized wheeled activities can result in significant morbidity. Results from the present study suggest that wheeled shoe and push scooter activities can result in upper extremity injuries. Protective equipment, particularly wrist guards and helmets, should be used when participating in these activities.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".