Using a severity threshold to improve occupational injury surveillance: Assessment of a severe traumatic injury‐based occupational health indicator across the International Classification of Diseases lexicon transition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traumatic injury is a leading cause of death and disability among US workers. Severe injuries are less subject to systematic ascertainment bias related to factors such as reporting barriers, inpatient admission criteria, and workers' compensation coverage. A state-based occupational health indicator (OHI #22) was initiated in 2012 to track work-related severe traumatic injury hospitalizations. After 2015, OHI #22 was reformulated to account for the transition from the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) to ICD-10-CM. This study describes rates and trends in OHI #22, alongside corresponding metrics for all work-related hospitalizations. METHODS: Seventeen states used hospital discharge data to calculate estimates for calendar years 2012-2019. State-panel fixed-effects regression was used to model linear trends in annual work-related hospitalization rates, OHI #22 rates, and the proportion of work-related hospitalizations resulting from severe injuries. Models included calendar year and pre- to post-ICD-10-CM transition. RESULTS: Work-related hospitalization rates showed a decreasing monotonic trend, with no significant change associated with the ICD-10-CM transition. In contrast, OHI #22 rates showed a monotonic increasing trend from 2012 to 2014, then a significant 50% drop, returning to a near-monotonic increasing trend from 2016 to 2019. On average, OHI #22 accounted for 12.9% of work-related hospitalizations before the ICD-10-CM transition, versus 9.1% post-transition. CONCLUSIONS: Although hospital discharge data suggest decreasing work-related hospitalizations over time, work-related severe traumatic injury hospitalizations are apparently increasing. OHI #22 contributes meaningfully to state occupational health surveillance efforts by reducing the impact of factors that differentially obscure minor injuries; however, OHI #22 trend estimates must account for the ICD-10-CM transition-associated structural break in 2015.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".