MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407719915 · doi:10.46747/cfp.7102112

All-terrain vehicle injuries in children and adolescents

2025· article· en· W4407719915 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Isabelle Hadad, Ran D. Goldman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Family Physician · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Farm Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerrainComputer scienceInjury preventionPoison controlMedicineData scienceMedical emergencyGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

QUESTION: I know that all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) are commonly used for recreational purposes, and that recently an adolescent was injured while driving one. What are the dangers of ATV use among adolescents, and what are some preventative measures to recommend to families in my clinic to reduce ATV-related injuries in children? ANSWER: There is a disproportionately high rate of ATV accidents in children compared with adults, and the safety of ATVs has become a public health concern in recent years because of their association with increased pediatric morbidity and mortality. Children account for more than one-third of ATV-related hospitalizations and they are at an increased risk of head injuries compared with adults. Orthopedic injuries are the most common injuries sustained by children as a result of ATV use. The most common causes of injury include inexperience, inadequate physical size and muscle strength to handle the vehicle, not wearing a helmet, poor judgment, loss of control, immature motor and cognitive development, and (in older children) substance use. Medical providers should recommend ATVs be limited to those over 16 years of age and that any adolescent using an ATV wears an appropriate helmet.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.243
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Family PhysicianSame topicAgriculture and Farm SafetyFrench-language works237,207