MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967189179 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.h.01633

Effects of Orthopaedic Immobilization of the Right Lower Limb on Driving Performance

2009· article· en· W1967189179 on OpenAlexaff
Marc-André Tremblay, Hélène Corriveau, Patrick Boissy, Cécile Smeesters, Mathieu Hamel, Jean-Christophe Murray, François Cabana

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth and Social Services Centre University Institute of Geriatrics of SherbrookeCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrakeLower limbSignificant differencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationElectronic brakeforce distributionBraking systemAutomotive engineeringMedicineSimulationComputer scienceMathematicsEngineeringSurgeryStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The effects of immobilization of the right lower limb on driving performance are unknown. Therefore, clinicians and legislators cannot put forth recommendations for road safety for patients requiring such immobilization. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effect of two orthopaedic immobilization devices on the braking performances of healthy volunteers under simulated driving conditions. METHODS: The braking performances of forty-eight healthy volunteers were evaluated under three conditions: wearing a running shoe, wearing a walking cast, and wearing an Aircast Walker on the right lower limb. A computerized driving simulator was used to measure the maximum force applied on the brake pedal during braking as well as the braking reaction time and the total braking time during emergency braking with and without a distractor. RESULTS: The mean braking forces applied with the shoe, the walking cast, and the Aircast Walker were 293.8, 275.4, and 287.2 lb (133.3, 124.9, and 130.3 kg), respectively. The value with the walking cast was significantly lower than that with the shoe or Aircast Walker (p < 0.0001); there was no difference between the shoe and the Aircast Walker. The adjusted mean braking reaction times during emergency braking without a distractor were 0.580 second (shoe), 0.609 second (cast), and 0.619 second (Aircast Walker). The value with the running shoe was significantly lower than that with either type of immobilization (p < or = 0.0001). With a distractor, the mean braking reaction time was shorter with the running shoe than it was with either form of immobilization (p < or = 0.0001); the mean time was also shorter with the walking cast than it was with the Aircast Walker (p = 0.003). During both emergency braking tasks (with and without a distractor), the mean total braking time was shorter with the shoe than it was with either type of immobilization (p < 0.0001). With a distractor, the adjusted mean total braking time was shorter with the walking cast than it was with the Aircast Walker (p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: Immobilization of the right lower limb affects the braking force as well as the braking reaction time and total braking time during emergency braking by healthy volunteers. While these changes are significant, their impact on the ability to drive safely during emergency braking situations is questionable. Future research into the impact of such immobilization on the emergency braking performances of patients is warranted to confirm these observations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 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

Citations43
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint SurgerySame topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207