Children in crashes: mechanisms of injury and restraint systems.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To explore the levels of protection offered to children involved in motor vehicle collisions. DESIGN: A joint study by the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) and Transport Canada, Ottawa, conducted in 2 phases: retrospective from 1990 to 1997 and prospective from 1998 to 2000. SETTING: CHEO, a university affiliated tertiary care centre. PATIENTS: Children admitted to CHEO between 1990 and 2000 with spinal trauma due to motor vehical crashes (MVCs). Phase I of the study involved analysis, in a series of 45 children after MVAs, by location of spinal injury versus belt type. Phase 2 was a prospective study of 22 children injured in 15 MVAs. INTERVENTIONS: A biomechanical assessment of the vehicle and its influence on the injuries sustained. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The nature and extent of the injuries sustained, and the vehicle dynamics and associated occupant kinematics. RESULTS: The odds ratio of sustaining a spinal injury while wearing a 2-point belt versus a 3-point belt was 24 (95% confidence interval 2.0-2.45, p < 0.1), indicating a much higher incidence with a lap belt than a shoulder strap. CONCLUSIONS: Proper seat-belt restraint reduces the morbidity in children involved in MVCs. Children under the age of 12 years should not be front-seat passengers until the sensitivity of air bags has been improved. Three-point pediatric seat belts should be available for family automobiles to reduce childhood trauma in MVCs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".