Direct medical costs of motorcycle crashes in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is no reliable estimate of costs incurred by motorcycle crashes. Our objective was to calculate the direct costs of all publicly funded medical care provided to individuals after motorcycle crashes compared with automobile crashes. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, matched cohort study of adults in Ontario who presented to hospital because of a motorcycle or automobile crash from 2007 through 2013. For each case, we identified 1 control absent a motor vehicle crash during the study period. Direct costs for each case and control were estimated in 2013 Canadian dollars from the payer perspective using methodology that links health care use to individuals over time. We calculated costs attributable to motorcycle and automobile crashes within 2 years using a difference-in-differences approach. RESULTS: We identified 26 831 patients injured in motorcycle crashes and 281 826 injured in automobile crashes. Mean costs attributable to motorcycle and automobile crashes were $5825 and $2995, respectively (p < 0.001). The rate of injury was triple for motorcycle crashes compared with automobile crashes (2194 injured annually/100 000 registered motorcycles v. 718 injured annually/100 000 registered automobiles; incidence rate ratio [IRR] 3.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.8 to 3.3, p < 0.001). Severe injuries, defined as those with an Abbreviated Injury Scale ≥ 3, were 10 times greater (125 severe injuries annually/100 000 registered motorcycles v. 12 severe injuries annually/100 000 registered automobiles; IRR 10.4, 95% CI 8.3 to 13.1, p < 0.001). INTERPRETATION: Considering both the attributable cost and higher rate of injury, we found that each registered motorcycle in Ontario costs the public health care system 6 times the amount of each registered automobile. Medical costs may provide an additional incentive to improve motorcycle safety.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".