Neck Motion due to the Halo-Vest in Prone and Supine Positions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: An in vitro biomechanical study of the effectiveness of halo-vest fixation. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate motion of the injured cervical spine with normal halo-vest application and vest loose in the prone and supine positions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Snaking motion of the neck is defined as rotation in opposing directions throughout the cervical spine. Previous clinical studies have suggested snaking neck motion due to the halo-vest may lead to inadequate healing or nonunion. METHODS: The halo-vest was applied to a Human Model of the Neck, which consisted of a cervical spine specimen mounted to the torso of an anthropometric test dummy and carrying a surrogate head. The model was transitioned from prone, to upright, to supine with the halo-vest applied normally and with the vest loose. Average peak spinal motions were computed in the prone and supine positions and contrasted with the physiologic rotation range, obtained from the intact flexibility test, and statistically compared (P < 0.05) between normal halo-vest application and vest loose. RESULTS: Snaking motion of the neck was observed in the prone and supine positions, consisting of extension at head/C1 and C1/2 and flexion at the inferior spinal levels. The intervertebral rotation peaks generally exceeded the physiologic range throughout the cervical spine due to the loose vest in the prone position. Significant increases in the extension peaks at head/C1 (16.9 degrees vs. 5.7 degrees) and flexion peaks at C4/5 (6.9 degrees vs. 3.6 degrees) and C7-T1 (5.2 degrees vs. 0.7 degrees) were observed in the prone position due to the loose vest, as compared to normal halo-vest application. Axial neck separation was consistently observed in the prone and supine positions. CONCLUSION: The present results, which document snaking motion of the cervical spine due to the halo-vest, indicate that an inadequately fitting or loose vest may significantly diminish its immobilization capacity leading to delayed healing or nonunion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".