MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1561097444 · doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2008.11.011

The Burden and Determinants of Neck Pain in Whiplash-Associated Disorders After Traffic Collisions

2009· article· en· W1561097444 on OpenAlexaff
Lena W. Holm, Linda Carroll, J. David Cassidy, Sheilah Hogg‐Johnson, Pierre Côté, Jaime Guzmán, Paul M. Peloso, Margareta Nordin, Eric L. Hurwitz, Gabrielle van der Velde, Eugene J. Carragee, Scott Haldeman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaInstitute for Work & HealthToronto Western HospitalToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhiplashMedicineInjury preventionIncidence (geometry)Neck painLimitingPoison controlSuicide preventionOccupational safety and healthMEDLINEHuman factors and ergonomicsMedical emergencyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Best evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVE: To undertake a best evidence synthesis on the burden and determinants of whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) after traffic collisions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous best evidence synthesis on WAD has noted a lack of evidence regarding incidence of and risk factors for WAD. Therefore there was a warrant of a reanalyze of this body of research. METHODS: A systematic search of Medline was conducted. The reviewers looked for studies on neck pain and its associated disorders published 1980-2006. Each relevant study was independently and critically reviewed by rotating pairs of reviewers. Data from studies judged to have acceptable internal validity (scientifically admissible) were abstracted into evidence tables, and provide the body of the best evidence synthesis. RESULTS: The authors found 32 scientifically admissible studies related to the burden and determinants of WAD. In the Western world, visits to emergency rooms due to WAD have increased over the past 30 years. The annual cumulative incidence of WAD differed substantially between countries. They found that occupant seat position and collision impact direction were associated with WAD in one study. Eliminating insurance payments for pain and suffering were associated with a lower incidence of WAD injury claims in one study. Younger ages and being a female were both associated with filing claims or seeking care for WAD, although the evidence is not consistent. Preliminary evidence suggested that headrests/car seats, aimed to limiting head extension during rear-end collisions had a preventive effect on reporting WAD, especially in females. CONCLUSION: WAD after traffic collisions affects many people. Despite many years of research, the evidence regarding risk factors for WAD is sparse but seems to include personal, societal, and environmental factors. More research including, well-defined studies with accurate denominators for calculating risk, and better consideration of confounding factors, are needed.

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.161
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.161
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.012
Bibliometrics0.0120.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations147
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Manipulative and Physiological TherapeuticsSame topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207