MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W197191671 · doi:10.1155/2005/536476

A Review of the Literature Refuting the Concept of Minor Impact Soft Tissue Injury

2005· review· en· W197191671 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christopher J. Centeno, Michael Freeman, Whitney L Elkins

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Research and Management · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoft tissueMinor (academic)Soft tissue injuryPhilosophyMedicineSurgeryHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Minor impact soft tissue (MIST) is an insurance industry concept that seeks to identify late whiplash as a psychosocial phenomenon. However, the medical literature in this area has not been systematically reviewed since the Quebec Task Force's review in 1995. OBJECTIVE: To review the medical literature which claims that late whiplash is an organic phenomenon causing significant disability. METHODS: The medical literature was reviewed in a narrative format. RESULTS: There are a significant number of studies which refute the MIST concept. CONCLUSION: A review of the literature did not support the validity of MIST.

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)0.009
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.411 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain Research and ManagementSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207