Supervision and risk of unintentional injury in young children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Despite advances in prevention, injuries remain a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among children. Supervision is often cited as an important determinant of child safety. Aims/Objectives/Purpose Assess the association between caregiver supervision and acute unintentional injury in young children. Methods We interviewed parents of children ≤age 4 whose injuries required Emergency Department (ED) treatment or admission to the hospital, to collect information on supervision (proximity, attention, continuity) at the time of injury and 1 h before the injury). Hospital admission was a proxy for injury severity. Case-crossover analyses were conducted. Results/Outcomes Interviews were completed by 222 participants; 50 (23%) were parents of children admitted to the hospital. For each dimension of supervision assessed, children admitted to the hospital were at higher risk of injury; proximity was associated with the highest risk. Compared to 1 h prior to injury, children were more likely to be beyond reach of their caregiver at the time of injury (OR 11.5, 95% CI 2.7 to 48.8 for children admitted to the hospital; OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.8 to 4.9 for children treated in the ED). Injury risk was highest for children with the least supervision; the magnitude of this association was higher for children admitted to the hospital (OR 11.5, 95% CI 2.7 to 48.8) than for children treated in the ED (OR 3.5, 95% CI 2.0 to 6.0). Significance/Contribution to the Field Less vigilant supervision increases risk of serious injury in young children. Proximity may be the most important supervision dimension for assessing child injury risk.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".