Simple Educational Intervention to Improve the Recovery from Acute Whiplash: Results of a Randomized, Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine if an educational intervention in the acute stage of whiplash injury may improve the recovery rate. METHODS: Consecutive subjects were randomized to one of two treatment groups: educational intervention or usual care. The intervention group received an educational pamphlet based on the current evidence. The control group did not receive these materials but received usual emergency department care and a standard nondirected discharge information sheet. Both groups underwent follow-up by telephone interview at two weeks and three months. The primary outcome measure of recovery was the patient's response to the question, "How well do you feel you are recovering from your injuries?" RESULTS: A total of 112 subjects agreed to participate. Age, gender, precollision employment level and health, initial symptoms, collision parameters, and emergency treatments were similar between the groups. At two weeks postcollision, 7.3% in the treatment group reported recovery compared with 8.8% in the control group (absolute risk difference, -1.5%; 95% confidence interval = -12.6% to 9.7%). At three months postcollision, 21.8% in the treatment group reported complete recovery compared with 21.0% in the control group (absolute risk difference, 0.8%; 95% confidence interval = -14.4% to 16.0%). At three months, there were no clinically or statistically significant differences between groups in severity of remaining symptoms, limitations in daily activities, therapy use, medications used, lost time from work, or litigation. CONCLUSIONS: An evidence-based educational pamphlet provided to patients at discharge from the emergency department is no more effective than usual care for patients with grade 1 or 2 whiplash-associated disorder.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".