Vulnerable road user injury trends following the COVID-19 pandemic in Toronto, Canada: An interrupted time series analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic altered traffic patterns worldwide, potentially impacting pedestrian and bicyclists safety in urban areas. In Toronto, Canada, work from home policies, bicycle network expansion, and quiet streets were implemented to support walking and cycling. We examined pedestrian and bicyclist injury trends from 2012 to 2022, utilizing police-reported killed or severely injured (KSI), emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalization data. METHODS: We used an interrupted time series design, with injury counts aggregated quarterly. We fit a negative binomial regression using a Bayesian modeling approach to data prior to the pandemic that included a secular time trend, quarterly seasonal indicator variables, and autoregressive terms. The differences between observed and expected injury counts based on pre-pandemic trends with 95% credible intervals (CIs) were computed. RESULTS: There were 38% fewer pedestrian KSI (95%CI: 19%, 52%), 35% fewer ED visits (95%CI: 28%, 42%), and 19% fewer hospitalizations (95%CI: 2%, 32%) since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. A reduction of 35% (95%CI: 7%, 54%) in KSI bicyclist injuries was observed, but However, ED visits and hospitalizations from bicycle-motor vehicle collisions were compatible with pre-pandemic trends. In contrast, for bicycle injuries not involving motor vehicles, large increases were observed for both ED visits, 73% (95% CI: 49%, 103%) and for hospitalization 108% (95% CI: 38%, 208%). CONCLUSION: New road safety interventions during the pandemic may have improved road safety for vulnerable road users with respect to collisions with motor vehicles; however, further investigation into the risk factors for bicycle injuries not involving motor vehicles is required.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".