Physician resistance to the late whiplash syndrome.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The biopsychosocial model of the late whiplash syndrome is based in part on the concept of symptom expectation--that the commonly held view of whiplash injury as a serious injury and anticipation of chronic pain and disability engenders a post-injury behavior that encourages chronic pain. We sought to determine if an unselected group of physicians (who might be expected to view whiplash as benign compared to most accident victims) would report a more benign outcome to their injuries than a group of nonphysicians. METHODS: This survey compares the self-reported outcome of whiplash-type injuries (neck sprain) in physicians and nonphysicians working at a university hospital. Subjects were asked to recall motor vehicle accident experiences, the presence of symptoms as a result, and the outcomes for those symptoms. RESULTS: Seventy-one percent of physicians and 60% of nonphysicians recalled being in a motor vehicle accident. About 31% of physicians recalled acute symptoms, compared to 46% of nonphysicians. Symptoms tended to be short-lived for physicians (days to weeks) while nonphysicians more often had symptoms lasting over 6 months. Only 9% of physicians recalled symptoms lasting for more than one year compared to 32% of nonphysicians. Physicians took no more than one week off work, whereas among nonphysicians, it was common to take more than 6 months off. CONCLUSION: Physicians appear to be in at least as many motor vehicle accidents as nonphysicians, and 33% suffered the acute whiplash syndrome. Physicians appear, however, to be more resistant than nonphysicians to the progression from acute pain to chronic pain and disability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".