Drug Use and Screening in Pediatric Trauma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of research on substance use in the pediatric trauma population. This study aims to describe trends in substance use and screening in the Canadian pediatric trauma population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of the London Health Sciences Centre trauma database from April 1999 to January 2009 identified patients less than 18 years old admitted after major trauma [injury severity score (ISS) > 12]. Data extracted included age, gender, ISS, blood alcohol concentration (BAC), and results of toxicology screens. RESULTS: BAC data were available for 799 patients and toxicology screens for 761 patients. BAC testing was completed in 30% (21% positive). Toxicology screens were completed in 7% (44% positive). Increasing age was associated with screening for alcohol (odds ratio = 1.4; 95% confidence interval 1.3-1.5). Screening for drug use had a bimodal distribution, with no children aged 4-10 years screened. Those screened for drugs and alcohol had a significantly higher ISS than those not tested (BAC 28 versus 23, P < 0.001, toxin screening 29 versus 24, P = 0.003). The most common ingestions were alcohol, benzodiazepines, cannabinoids, and opiates. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for drugs and alcohol is sporadic in the pediatric trauma population. Further study utilizing a universal approach to drug and alcohol screening is needed to further delineate the true prevalence of substance use in this population.
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 | 0.000 | 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".