MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

5996 Reviewing the evidence of the safety of baby slings

2024· article· en· W4401131199 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniella Carter, Fiona Finlay

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSling (weapon)PediatricsDiscontinuationBreastfeedingSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives Following a Child Death Overview Panel (CDOP) meeting where the death of a baby in a sling was reviewed, a literature review was carried out looking at the safety of baby slings and carriers. Methods Literature review using ‘PubMed’ and ‘Embase’ searching for terms ‘baby sling’, ‘baby carrier’ ‘injuries’ ‘deaths’ ‘safety’. Results Babywearing has been practiced for many centuries around the world. In industrialised societies the use of a baby sling or carrier has become increasingly popular in recent decades with growing evidence of the benefits, including maternal-infant bonding and attachment, optimal breastfeeding outcomes, positive neck and muscle development, soothing and calming for the baby and convenient for the parent. However, there is a body of case reports/evidence that the use of baby slings and carriers can lead to adverse outcomes when not used properly, including hip dysplasia, falls, head injuries and death due to suffocation. Babies that appear more at risk include those that are less than 4 months of age, those born prematurely or with a low birth weight and those with breathing difficulties. Data collected in Canada in the 1990’s and in the United States of America in 2011–2020 showed around half of injuries are in babies less than 6 months old, with causes including the carer tripping or falling whilst carrying the baby, the baby falling from the carrier and other injuries happening whilst the carrier is being taken on and off. The majority of the injuries were to the face or head and included skull fractures. Conclusion Due to the risk of injury/death the consortium of UK Sling Manufacturers and Retailers provides the TICKS acronym for advice; (Tight, In view at all times, Close enough to kiss, Keep chin off the chest, Supported back). This is to ensure the airway is kept clear, the baby can be checked on regularly, is able to breathe easily and is not overheating. It also supports the following of safety advice and manufacturers guides when choosing a baby carrier.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0160.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention→French-language works237,207→