Causes and Characteristics of Children Unintentional Injuries in Emergency Department and Its Implications for Prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Child unintentional injuries have become a hot topic worldwide, and substantial regional disparities existed in causes and characteristics. To date, limited data are available to investigate the causes and characteristics of child unintentional injuries from hospitals for children in China. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted between January 2017 and December 2018 in Shanghai, China. Patients aged <18 years with an unintentional injury presented to the emergency department were enrolled. Demographic information, Pediatric Risk for Mortality III score, and outcome variables were retrieved from electronic health records (EHRs). Frequencies and proportions of categorical variables and means and SDs of continuous variables are presented. Chi-square test and Student's t -test were used for the comparison between groups, as appropriate. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate potential risk factors for admission to the hospital. Results: A total of 29,597 cases with unintentional injuries were identified between January 2017 and December 2018, with boys vs. girls ratio of 1.75. Preschool children account for approximately two-thirds of unintentional injuries in the emergency department. A distinctive pattern of mechanisms of unintentional injuries between gender was documented, and sports injury was significantly higher in boys than in girls (10.2 vs. 7.8%). Compared with Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) Grade 3 patients, Grade 2 [odds ratio (OR) = 2.99, 95% CI = 1.93–4.63, P < 0.001] and Grade 1 (OR = 74.85, 95% CI = 12.93–433.14, P < 0.001) patients had higher risk of inhospital admission. For causes of injuries, compared with falling, foreign body and poison had a lower risk of inhospital admission, while transport injury (OR = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.07–1.59, P = 0.008) and high fall injury (OR = 2.58. 95% CI =1.48–4.49, P < 0.001) had a significantly higher risk of admission. Conclusions: There was a significant relationship between age-groups and unintentional injuries between gender, with decreased injuries among girls growing up older. Preventive measures should be taken to reduce transport injury and high fall injury, which had a significantly higher risk of admission.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".