MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Empirical validation of the New Zealand serious non-fatal injury outcome indicator for ‘all injury’

2017· article· en· W2757220430 on OpenAlexaffabout
Colin Cryer, Gabrielle Davie, Pauline Gulliver, Eleni Petridou, Nick Dessypris, Jens Lauritsen, Alison Macpherson, Ted R. Miller, Brandon de Graaf

Bibliographic record

VenueInjury Prevention · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersAccident Compensation Corporation
KeywordsForensic engineeringInjury preventionPoison controlOccupational safety and healthHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionEngineeringMedical emergencyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our purpose was to empirically validate the official New Zealand (NZ) serious non-fatal 'all injury' indicator. To that end, we aimed to investigate the assumption that cases selected by the indicator have a high probability of admission. Using NZ hospital in-patient records, we identified serious injury diagnoses, captured by the indicator, if their diagnosis-specific survival probability was ≤0.941 based on at least 100 admissions. Corresponding diagnosis-specific admission probabilities from regions in Canada, Denmark and Greece were estimated. Aggregate admission probabilities across those injury diagnoses were calculated and inference made to New Zealand. The admission probabilities were 0.82, 0.89 and 0.90 for the regions of Canada, Denmark and Greece, respectively. This work provides evidence that the threshold set for the official New Zealand serious non-fatal injury indicator for 'all injury' captures injuries with high aggregate admission probability. If so, it is valid for monitoring the incidence of serious injuries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.186
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.186
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.356 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInjury PreventionSame topicTrauma and Emergency Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207