MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976909136 · doi:10.1080/15389580802593269

The Anatomy and Biomechanics of Acute and Chronic Whiplash Injury

2009· review· en· W1976909136 on OpenAlexaff
Gunter P. Siegmund, Beth A. Winkelstein, Paul C. Ivancic, Mats Y. Svensson, Anita N. Vasavada

Bibliographic record

VenueTraffic Injury Prevention · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsAdvantage Forensics (Canada)University of British Columbia
FundersCenters for Disease Control and PreventionUniversity of HaifaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsWhiplashBiomechanicsMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPoison controlNeck painInjury preventionWhiplash injuryAnatomyMedical emergencyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whiplash injury is the most common motor vehicle injury, yet it is also one of the most poorly understood. Here we examine the evidence supporting an organic basis for acute and chronic whiplash injuries and review the anatomical sites within the neck that are potentially injured during these collisions. For each proposed anatomical site--facet joints, spinal ligaments, intervertebral discs, vertebral arteries, dorsal root ganglia, and neck muscles--we present the clinical evidence supporting that injury site, its relevant anatomy, the mechanism of and tolerance to injury, and the future research needed to determine whether that site is responsible for some whiplash injuries. This article serves as a snapshot of the current state of whiplash biomechanics research and provides a roadmap for future research to better understand and ultimately prevent whiplash injuries.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 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

Citations129
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraffic Injury PreventionSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207