MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Community-Level Disadvantage of Adults With Firearm- vs Motor Vehicle–Related Injuries

2024· article· en· W4400354878 on OpenAlexaff
Lauren L. Agoubi, Samantha A. Banks, Ashley Hink, Deborah A. Kuhls, Shelbie D. Kirkendoll, Alex Winchester, Christopher Hoeft, Bhavin Patel, Avery B. Nathens

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGun Ownership and Violence Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsDisadvantageInjury preventionMotor vehicle crashPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePoison controlMedical emergencyPsychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Motor vehicle crash (MVC) and firearm injuries are 2 of the top 3 mechanisms of adult injury-related deaths in the US. Objective: To understand the differing associations between community-level disadvantage and firearm vs MVC injuries to inform mechanism-specific prevention strategies and appropriate postdischarge resource allocation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter cross-sectional study analyzed prospectively collected data from the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Firearm Study. Included patients were treated either for firearm injury between March 1, 2021, and February 28, 2022, or for MVC-related injuries between January 1 and December 31, 2021, at 1 of 128 participating ACS trauma centers. Exposures: Community distress. Main outcome and Measure: Odds of presenting with a firearm as compared with MVC injury based on levels of community distress, as measured by the Distressed Communities Index (DCI) and categorized in quintiles. Results: A total of 62 981 patients were included (mean [SD] age, 42.9 [17.7] years; 42 388 male [67.3%]; 17 737 Black [28.2%], 9052 Hispanic [14.4%], 36 425 White [57.8%]) from 104 trauma centers. By type, there were 53 474 patients treated for MVC injuries and 9507 treated for firearm injuries. Patients with firearm injuries were younger (median [IQR] age, 31.0 [24.0-40.0] years vs 41.0 [29.0-58.0] years); more likely to be male (7892 of 9507 [83.0%] vs 34 496 of 53 474 [64.5%]), identified as Black (5486 of 9507 [57.7%] vs 12 251 of 53 474 [22.9%]), and Medicaid insured or uninsured (6819 of 9507 [71.7%] vs 21 310 of 53 474 [39.9%]); and had a higher DCI score (median [IQR] score, 74.0 [53.2-94.8] vs 58.0 [33.0-83.0]) than MVC injured patients. Among admitted patients, the odds of presenting with a firearm injury compared with MVC injury were 1.50 (95% CI, 1.35-1.66) times higher for patients living in the most distressed vs least distressed ZIP codes. After controlling for age, sex, race, ethnicity, and payer type, the DCI components associated with the highest adjusted odds of presenting with a firearm injury were a high housing vacancy rate (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04-1.19) and high poverty rate (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.10-1.24). Among patients sustaining firearm injuries patients, 4333 (54.3%) received no referrals for postdischarge rehabilitation, home health, or psychosocial services. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of adults with firearm- and motor vehicle-related injuries, we found that patients from highly distressed communities had higher odds of presenting to a trauma center with a firearm injury as opposed to an MVC injury. With two-thirds of firearm injury survivors treated at trauma centers being discharged without psychosocial services, community-level measures of disadvantage may be useful for allocating postdischarge care resources to patients with the greatest need.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicGun Ownership and Violence ResearchFrench-language works237,207