MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3080330503

Paediatric Head Injury and Traumatic Brain Injury.

2020· article· en· W3080330503 on OpenAlexaff
Emer Ryan, Turlough Bolger, Michael Barrett, C Blackburn, Ifeoma P. Okafor, Robert M. McNamara, Eleanor J. Molloy

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHead injuryDemographicsTriageNeuroimagingAttendanceSkull fractureTraumatic brain injuryPediatricsGlasgow Coma ScaleEmergency medicineSurgeryPsychiatryDemography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim To determine prevalence of head injury presenting to paediatric emergency departments (PEDs) and characterise by demographics, triage category, disposition neuroimaging or re-attendance. Methods Presentations in 2014 and 2015, with diagnoses of head injury, intracranial bleed, skull fracture including single or re-attendances within 28 days post head injury to all national PEDs, were analysed. Demographics, triage score, imaging rate, admission, mechanisms and representation rate were recorded. Results Head injury was diagnosed in 13,392 of 224,860 (5.9%), median (IQR) age 3.9 (1.4 - 8.3) years. Regionally 3% of children <5 years attend each year. The total admitted/transferred was 10.8% (n=1460). Neuroimaging rate was 4.3% (n= 570). Falls predominated. Sport accounted for 12.2%. Conclusion One in twenty children PED presentations are head injury, over half in preschool children. A sizeable number were symptomatic reflected by admission, transfer, imaging or re-attendance. Observational management was favoured over imaging reflected in the higher admission versus imaging rate.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances→French-language works237,207→