Impact of a Canadian Pediatric Society Position Statement on Trampoline-related Injuries at IWK Health Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In 2007, the Canadian Pediatric Society (CPS) advised against the recreational use of trampolines at home and reaffirmed that statement in 2013. We evaluated the impact of this position statement on trampoline-related injuries at the IWK Health Centre in Halifax, Nova Scotia. METHODS: We completed a retrospective analysis (2001-2015) using the IWK Health Centre's Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program (CHIRPP) database. The time frame was divided into a pre-statement, post-statement, and post-reaffirmed statement. We included data on captured emergency department visits for children aged 0-16 years with trampoline-related injuries. Demographics, location, and injury mechanism were compared using the chi-squared and z tests. The proportions of trampoline injuries for pre-, post-, and post-reaffirmed statements were compared via analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: Since the CPS statement, trampoline-related injuries significantly increased at the IWK Health Centre from 0.9% to 1.6% (p<0.001). Injuries increased in children under four years old and decreased in children 10-14 years (p=0.009). Recreational use at home (93%) remained the most common location of the incident (p<0.001). Fractures (n=277) and sprains/soft tissue injuries (n=232) to the ankle, head/neck, or elbow remained the most common injuries and did not significantly change post-statement or post-reaffirmed statement (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the CPS statement, trampoline-related injuries remain an important source of injuries at the IWK Health Centre. The types of injury did not significantly change during this time frame.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".