Social Complexity and Risk for Pediatric Burn Injury: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social complexity in health outcomes has been attributed to greater risk of injury, adverse health consequences, and early death in a variety of populations. To determine what social complexity factors associated with burn injury in children, a systematic review of the literature was performed. Two different databases (PubMed and SCOPUS) were searched for articles related to environmental and social determinants of burn injury. Selected literature examined social complexity factors to establish the strength of evidence in relation to incidence of burn injury in children. The extent of factors and the most common social complexities were reviewed. The 641 manuscripts found in PubMed and 327 from SCOPUS were initially reviewed for duplication and English language. Subsequently, manuscripts were selected for relevance based on titles followed by abstracts. Forty-seven manuscripts were reviewed in their entirety. The literature supports a relationship between an increased incidence of pediatric burns in lower income families, children with behavioral disorders, fewer years of parental education and children residing in a rural setting. The majority of reports came from Europe followed by Australia, and scattered information from other countries. Social complexity factors in the environment of the child are associated with an increased risk of burn injury in children. The literature supports the influence of lower income, lower parental education, behavioral disorders and living rurally with an increased incidence of injury. By identifying children at increased risk, it is possible to develop targeted burn prevention and education programs to mitigate burn injury.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".