Risk Factors for Bicycling Injuries in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Child and adolescent bicycling is beneficial, but injuries occur and can be severe and costly. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the individual and environmental factors associated with bicycling injury risk in children and adolescents. DATA SOURCES: Fourteen electronic databases were searched. STUDY SELECTION: Two authors independently assessed potentially relevant articles for eligibility. The inclusion criteria were as follows: bicyclists younger than 20 years old; examined individual and environmental characteristics of bicycling crashes; compared injured and uninjured bicyclists or bicyclists with different types or severity of injury; study designs with a predetermined comparison group; and published in English from January 1990 to May 2015. The exclusion criteria were outcomes related to helmet use, helmet legislation, or mountain biking, and comparisons of census-based injury rates. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on study design, setting, population, injury definitions, injury risk factors, and results were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed by using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scales. RESULTS: Fourteen articles were included. Lower socioeconomic status, riding on the road, riding in rural compared with urban areas, and riding on the sidewalk were associated with bicycling injury. Bicycling safety education did not protect children against future injury. Injuries related to a motor vehicle collision were more severe than other bicycling injuries. LIMITATIONS: Study heterogeneity prevented meta-analyses. Study quality was affected by inadequate definitions of study groups and self-reported data. CONCLUSIONS: Lower socioeconomic status and riding location were associated with bicycling injury and severity increased with motor vehicle collisions. The bicycling environment is a promising avenue for prevention.
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 | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".