Comparison of concordance and predictive validity of head injuries from parental reports and medical records
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine agreement between parental reports of head injury and evidence of head injury in medical records and to compare these two measures in predicting early conduct disorder (CD). DESIGN AND SETTING: Parent survey data was compared with records of child head injury from the National Health Services Register (Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec, RAMQ) administrative database. PARTICIPANTS: = 685) ages 6-9 with and without CD. There were 147 children with RAMQ recorded head injury and 39 children with parent-reported head injury. MAIN MEASURES: Indication of one or more head injury before 6 years of age as reported by parents and/or as noted in medical data. Early CD (present by age 9) according to parents and/or teachers. RESULTS: < 0.001. Medical data significantly predicted the presence of CD in children, with a RAMQ coded head injury suggesting a child was 1.88 times more likely to have CD. Parent reports of head injuries did not significantly predict CD. Conclusion: Medical data should be prioritized in research addressing pediatric head injury, given that parent reports may fail to capture incidence of injury and therefore may be less predictive of other known correlates of head injury.
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 | 0.012 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".