Paediatric injuries due to falls from windows and balconies: an 8-year prospective and retrospective review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unintentional falls from windows and balconies pose a serious health risk to children. Limited Canadian data describing such falls currently exist. This study aimed to describe the frequency, demographic characteristics, injury patterns, and risk factors associated with paediatric falls from windows and balconies. METHODS: This study employed both prospective data collection and retrospective medical record review. Prospectively, consenting families were enrolled from February 2015 to February 2017; retrospectively, charts from January 2009 to December 2014 were reviewed. Children 0 to 16 years of age, who presented to the Stollery Children's Hospital (Edmonton, Alberta) emergency department due to a fall from a window or balcony, were included. RESULTS: A total of 102 children were included; thirty were enrolled prospectively and 72 retrospectively. Median age was 4.5 years (interquartile range 2.83 to 6.83) with 63.7% (65 of 102) males. About 87.2% (89 of 102) of falls were from windows and 12.8% (13 of 102) from balconies. The median estimated height of fall was 4.1 m (interquartile range 3.04 to 4.73). About 58.4% (59 of 101) had at least one major injury (i.e., concussion, fractured skull, internal injury, fractured limb, severe laceration), 36.6% had minor injuries only (i.e., abrasions, contusions, sprains), and 5.0% had no documented injuries. There were no fatalities. About 30.4% (31 of 102) were admitted, with 48.4% of these children (15 of 31) requiring surgery. CONCLUSION: Most falls from windows and balconies occurred in children under the age of 5 years and were associated with serious morbidity, high admission rates, and need for surgery. Child supervision as well as installation of key safety features in windows may help minimize paediatric fall-related injuries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".