Don't take down the monkey bars: Rapid systematic review of playground-related injuries.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the available evidence on playground-related injuries and to determine the prevalence of these injuries in pediatric populations. DATA SOURCES: A rapid systematic review was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, as well as the gray literature. STUDY SELECTION: The search was limited to studies published between 2012 and 2016 and identified a total of 858 articles, of which 22 met our inclusion criteria: original quantitative studies published in peer-reviewed journals in the past 5 years, concerning unintentional injuries in playgrounds in children aged 0 to 18 years. SYNTHESIS: Information was collected on study and injury characteristics, and the proportion of pediatric injuries related to playground activity was determined. Studies were performed in various countries and most were retrospective cohort studies. The prevalence of playground-related injury ranged from 2% to 34% (median 10%). Studies varied in the types of injuries investigated, including head injuries, genitourinary injuries, ocular and dental trauma, and various types of fractures. Most injuries were low severity. CONCLUSION: Although playgrounds are a common location where pediatric injuries occur, these injuries are relatively low in frequency and severity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".