MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3042270457 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20190200

Death and long-term disability after gun injury: a cohort analysis

2020· article· en· W3042270457 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Sheharyar Raza, Deva Thiruchelvam, Donald A. Redelmeier

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGun Ownership and Violence Research
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health Services and Policy ResearchUniversity of TorontoInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchPhysicians' Services Incorporated Foundation
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioPoison controlInjury preventionCohortEmergency medicineOccupational safety and healthPopulationCohort studyEmergency departmentSuicide preventionConfidence intervalMedical emergencyPediatricsPsychiatryInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Gun injury accounts for substantial acute mortality worldwide and many others survive with lingering disabilities. We investigated whether additional health losses beyond mortality can also arise for patients who survive with long-term disability. Methods: We conducted a population-based individual patient analysis of adults injured by firearms who had received emergency medical care in Ontario, Canada, from Apr. 1, 2002, to Apr. 1, 2019. Longitudinal cohort analyses were evaluated through deterministic linkages of individual electronic patient files. The primary outcome was death or subsequent application for long-term disability in the years after hospital discharge. Results: In total, 8313 patients were injured from firearms, of which 3020 were injured from intentional incidents and 5293 were injured from unintentional incidents. A total of 2657 (88.0%) patients with intentional gun injury and 5089 (96.1%) patients with unintentional gun injury survived initial injuries. After a mean 7.75 years of follow-up, patients surviving intentional injuries had a disability rate twice as high as patients surviving unintentional injuries (19.7% v. 10.1%, p < 0.001), equivalent to a hazard ratio of 2.01 (95% confidence interval 1.80–2.25). The higher risk of long-term disability for survivors after intentional gun injury was not explained by demographic characteristics, extended to survivors treated and released from the emergency department, and was observed regardless of whether the incident was self-inflicted or from interpersonal assault. Half of the disability cases were identified after the first year. Additional predictors of long-term disability included a lower socioeconomic status, an urban home location, arrival by ambulance transport, a history of mental illness and a diagnosis of substance use disorder. Interpretation: Our study shows that gun death statistics underestimate the extent of health losses from long-term disability, particularly for those with intentional injuries. Additional and sustainable follow-up medical care might improve patient outcomes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.337 · 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

Citations43
Published2020
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicGun Ownership and Violence ResearchFrench-language works237,207