Image_3_Incidence and prevalence of traumatic spinal cord injury in Canada using health administrative data.tif
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction<p>Incidence and prevalence data are needed for the planning, funding, delivery and evaluation of injury prevention and health care programs. The objective of this study was to estimate the Canadian traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI) incidence, prevalence and trends over time using national-level health administrative data.</p>Methods<p>ICD-10 CA codes were used to identify the cases for the hospital admission and discharge incidence rates of TSCI in Canada from 2005 to 2016. Provincial estimates were calculated using the location of the admitting facility. Age and sex-specific incidence rates were set to the 2015/2016 rates for the 2017 to 2019 estimates. Annual incidence rates were used as input for the prevalence model that applied annual survivorship rates derived from life expectancy data.</p>Results<p>For 2019, it was estimated that there were 1,199 cases (32.0 per million) of TSCI admitted to hospitals, with 123 (10% of admissions) in-hospital deaths and 1,076 people with TSCI (28.7 per million) were discharged in Canada. The estimated number of people living with TSCI was 30,239 (804/million); 15,533 (52%) with paraplegia and 14,706 (48%) with tetraplegia. Trends included an increase in the number of people injured each year from 874 to 1,199 incident cases (37%), an older average age at injury rising from 46.6 years to 54.3 years and a larger proportion over the age of 65 changing from 22 to 38%, during the 15-year time frame.</p>Conclusion<p>This study provides a standard method for calculating the incidence and prevalence of TSCI in Canada using national-level health administrative data. The estimates are conservative based on the limitations of the data but represent a large Canadian sample over 15 years, which highlight national trends. An increasing number of TSCI cases among the elderly population due to falls reported in this study can inform health care planning, prevention strategies, and future research.</p>
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".