Firearm injuries in Edmonton: A decade of experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Firearms cause severe injuries that require a large amount of healthcare resources. In Canada, few studies describe the incidence and outcomes of gun violence treated in our trauma centers. Objective: From trauma registry data, we describe the demographic, social, and medical characteristics of patients presenting to the hospital with gunshot wounds. In particular, we describe their injury severity, resuscitative interventions, hospitalizations, and outcomes. Results: From 2012 to 2022, Edmonton’s two trauma centers saw 367 patients injured by firearms, predominately young males. Assault was a more common intent for injury (76%) than self-harm, accident, or law enforcement (16%, 6%, and 2%, respectively). Handguns were the most common weapon identified. Resuscitative procedures for these patients were common, including endotracheal intubation, chest decompression, and blood administration. Overall mortality was 24% with most deaths occurring on the first day. In those who survived beyond that, hospitalization duration averaged 21 days. Only 53% were discharged to routine self-care. Conclusion: Gun violence is an uncommon presentation in Edmonton’s trauma centers. Healthcare resource utilization is expected to be high, especially on the first day.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".