Motor vehicle collision (MVC) emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalisations in Ontario during the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic policy response dramatically changed local transportation patterns. This project investigated the impact of COVID-19 policies on motor vehicle collision (MVC)-related emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalisations in Ontario. METHODS: Data were collected on MVC-related ED visits and hospitalisations in Ontario between March 2016 and December 2022. Using an interrupted time series design, negative binomial regression models were fitted to the pre-pandemic data, including monthly indicator variables for seasonality and accounting for autocorrelation. Extrapolations simulated expected outcome trajectories during the pandemic, which were compared with actual observed outcome counts using the overall per cent change and mean monthly difference. Data were modelled separately for vehicle occupants, pedestrians and cyclists (MVC and non-MVC injuries). RESULTS: There was a 31.5% decrease in observed ED visits (95% CI -35.4 to -27.3) and a 6.0% decrease in hospitalisations (95% CI -13.2 to 1.6) among vehicle occupants, relative to expected counts during the pandemic. Results were similar for pedestrians. Among cyclist MVCs, there was an increase in ED visits (12.8%, 95% CI -8.2 to 39.4) and hospitalisations (46.0%, 95% CI 11.6 to 93.6). Among non-MVC cyclists, there was also an increase in ED visits (47.0%, 95% CI 12.5 to 86.8) and hospitalisations (50.1%, 95% CI 8.2 to 101.2). CONCLUSIONS: We observed fewer vehicle occupant and pedestrian collision injuries than expected during the pandemic. By contrast, we observed more cycling injuries than expected, especially in cycling injuries not involving motor vehicles. These observations may be attributable to changes in transportation patterns during the pandemic and increased uptake of recreational cycling.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".