MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1562400964 · doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2009.169151

Head and neck control varies with perturbation acceleration but not jerk: implications for whiplash injuries

2009· article· en· W1562400964 on OpenAlexafffund
Gunter P. Siegmund, Jean‐Sébastien Blouin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physiology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsAdvantage Forensics (Canada)University of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsJerkKinematicsWhiplashAccelerationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationNeck musclesMotor controlMedicinePhysicsPoison controlAnatomyClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent studies have proposed that a high rate of acceleration onset, i.e. high jerk, during a low-speed vehicle collision increases the risk of whiplash injury by triggering inappropriate muscle responses and/or increasing peak head acceleration. Our goal was to test these proposed mechanisms at realistic jerk levels and then to determine how collision jerk affects the potential for whiplash injuries. Twenty-three seated volunteers (8 F, 15 M) were exposed to multiple experiments involving perturbations simulating the onset of a vehicle collision in eyes open and eyes closed conditions. In the first experiment, subjects experienced five forward and five rearward perturbations to look for the inappropriate muscle responses and 'floppy' head kinematics previously attributed to high jerk perturbations. In the second experiment, we independently varied the jerk ( approximately 125 to 3 000 m s(-3)) and acceleration ( approximately 0.65 to 2.6 g) of the perturbation to assess their effect on the electromyographic (EMG) responses of the sternocleidomastoid (SCM), scalene (SCAL) and cervical paraspinal (PARA) muscles and the kinematic responses of the head and neck. In the first experiment, we found neither inappropriate muscle responses nor floppy head kinematics when subjects had their eyes open, but observed two subjects with floppy head kinematics with eyes closed. In the second experiment, we found that about 70% of the variations in the SCM and SCAL responses and about 95% of the variations in head/neck kinematics were explained by changes in perturbation acceleration in both the eyes open and eyes closed conditions. Less than 2% of the variation in the muscle and kinematic responses was explained by changes in perturbation jerk and, where significant, response amplitudes diminished with increasing jerk. Based on these findings, collision jerk appears to have little or no role in the genesis of whiplash injuries in low-speed vehicle crashes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations23
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of PhysiologySame topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207