MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2762121435 · doi:10.1093/pch/20.5.e77

119: The Need for Safer Pool Fencing: A 10 Year Retrospective Study of Paediatric Drownings

2015· article· en· W2762121435 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
C Cybulskie, April Kam

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFencingMedicineCoronerInjury preventionPoison controlOccupational safety and healthSuicide preventionMedical emergencyPopulationPsychological interventionHuman factors and ergonomicsEmergency medicineFamily medicinePediatricsEnvironmental healthNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drowning is the second leading cause of injury related death for Canadian children. For every child who dies from drowning, another five receive emergency department care for nonfatal drowning injuries. Approximately 50% of private pool drownings involve 1–4 year olds, with the majority lacking true four-sided fencing and self-closing, self-latching gates. Private pools are key locations for interventions, as safety features can be added to prevent children from accessing pools without caregivers' awareness. Many cities in Canada have attempted to improve pool safety; however, by-laws do not fully identify with pool enclosure recommendations issued by the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario. To identify drowning incidences involving the paediatric population in order to focus prevention efforts and develop potential intervention strategies. A retrospective chart review was conducted from January 2004 to December 2013 for drowning and nonfatal submersion diagnoses in children under 18 across three urban hospitals. Cases where the manner of drowning was suicide or homicide were excluded. Medical records were examined using the electronic databases Sovera and Meditech. There were 61 drowning incidences during the ten years, and almost half (44%) of these occurred in private pools (Figure 1). Of those in private pools, 19 of 27 were in the 1 to 4 age group category. Moreover, 74% of incidences that occurred in private pools were classified as unsupervised/supervision distracted. Information regarding true 4-sided fencing showed no 4-sided fence in 10 of 27 cases and in 15 of 27 it was unknown. Of the eight deaths that occurred during the study period, seven of eight were within the 1 to 4 age group. Five of the deaths occurred in a private pool where there was no 4-sided pool fencing. The results identified the age group 1 to 4 as a vulnerable population to focus on with regard to drowning. In addition, a large portion of drowning incidences and deaths in this age group occurred in private pools, which offers a focal point for prevention. The results suggest that reducing the access of this age group to private pools may prevent and reduce drowning incidences and deaths. Thus, an initiative for by-law changes regarding the implementation of safer pool fencing in private pools across the country is needed to prevent drowning incidences, and has the potential to reduce the number of deaths and injuries from childhood drownings.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention→French-language works237,207→