MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pedestrian Fatalities Associated With Halloween in the United States

2018· article· en· W2898827891 on OpenAlexafffund
John A. Staples, Candace Yip, Donald A. Redelmeier

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Pediatrics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British ColumbiaSunnybrook Health Science CentreCentre for Advancing Health Outcomes
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthVancouver Coastal Health Research Institute
KeywordsMedicinePedestrianEnvironmental healthAdministration (probate law)Medical emergencyInjury preventionOccupational safety and healthSuicide preventionPoison controlTransport engineeringPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

differences in ED diagnoses was determined by the adjusted F, a variant of the second-order Rao-Scott adjusted χ 2 statistic.5 Results | Among the total population of 8 080 738 participants, 51.5% were boys, 76.0% were white, and 24.0% were Hispanic.Across all ED diagnoses, boys and girls did not have statistically significant differences in prevalence rates (Table ).Across all ED diagnoses, the overall prevalence rate was 1.4% (95% CI, 1.0%-1.8%).The prevalence of any OSFED diagnosis was 0.7% (95% CI, 0.5%-1.0%).The prevalence of AN was 0.1% (95% CI, 0.0%-0.3%).No cases of BN were present in this sample.Finally, the prevalence of BED was 0.6% (95% CI, 0.4%-0.9%).Discussion | Significant sex differences were not found across ED diagnoses.Similarly, past research with adolescents aged 13 to 18 years did not find sex differences in the prevalence of AN; however, differences emerged for BN, BED, and subthreshold AN, with higher prevalence among girls.6 Taken together, sex differences in EDs may not emerge until adolescence.This is consistent with previous research demonstrating a lack of prepubertal sex differences in EDs, with elevated prevalence of EDs in girls during and after puberty.7 Limitations of the study include the exclusion of OSFED AN, which the KSADS operationally defined only by caregivers' report of emaciation, and no assessment of avoidant and restrictive food intake disorder.Although EDs are not the focus of the ABCD study, use of the KSADS as opposed to a diagnostic tool tailored to EDs is also a limitation.The low prevalence of EDs may have reduced statistical power to detect sex differences.Future researchers may wish to characterize this sample in greater detail, including assessment of race/ethnicity, body mass index, and psychiatric comorbidity.As the ABCD cohort releases additional waves of data, researchers are encouraged to harness this nationally representative, prospective data set to explore developmental risk factors for EDs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA PediatricsSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207