The Effect of a Liner on the Dispersion of Sacral Interface Pressures During Spinal Immobilization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sacral pressure ulcers are a significant problem following spinal cord injury and are felt to be in part due to the high interface-pressures generated while strapped to the spine board. The objective of this study was to determine sacral interface-pressure and sensing area in healthy volunteers on a spine board and the effects of a gel pressure dispersion liner. Thirty-seven volunteers were placed on a pressure-sensing mat between the subject and the spine board. Measurements were carried out with and without a gel liner. Pressures and sensing area were recorded every minute for 40 minutes. The highest pressure was generated at the sacral prominence of each subject. Mean interface-pressures were higher on the spine board alone than with the gel liner (p < .0001). Overall, mean sensing area was lower on the spine board than with the gel liner (p < .0001). Standard spinal immobilization causes high sacral interface-pressures. The addition of a gel liner on the spine board decreased overall mean sacral pressures and increased mean sensing area. Generation of sacral pressure ulcers may be related to the initial interface-pressures generated while the patient is strapped to the spine board. The addition of a gel liner may reduce the incidence of sacral pressure ulcers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".