MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Effect of a 3-Point Harness Restraint and Car Seat in Whiplash-Type Lateral Impacts

2005· article· en· W2023355671 on OpenAlexaff
Shrawan Kumar, Robert Ferrari, Yogesh Narayan, Troy Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhiplashTorsoMedicineSeat beltTrunkHybrid IIIPoison controlPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAccelerationPhysical therapyAnatomyMedical emergencyStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Seventeen healthy volunteers were subjected to right and left lateral impacts 5.0, 6.8, 9.2, and 16.8 m/s acceleration while positioned in a Volvo car seat with lap and shoulder seat belt restraint in laboratory setting. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of using a standard 3-point lap and shoulder seat belt and Volvo car seat on the response of the cervical muscles to increasing low-velocity lateral impacts. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A previous study of lateral impacts in a 5-point harness restraint with head and trunk in neutral posture suggests that the burden of impact is borne primarily by the splenius capitis muscle contralateral to the direction of impact. That study, however, used a nonstandard harness for automobiles, and other studies suggest that a lap-and-shoulder seat belt may increase the risk of whiplash injury. METHODS: Triaxial accelerometers recorded the acceleration of the 1) sled, 2) torso at the shoulder level, and 3) head of the participant, while bilateral electromyograms of the sternocleidomastoids, trapezii, and splenii capitis were also recorded. RESULTS: For participants experiencing a right or left lateral impact, the muscle responses increased with increasing levels of acceleration (P < 0.05). The time to onset and time to peak electromyogram for most muscles also showed a trend to progressively decrease with increasing levels of acceleration. The peak head accelerations relative to the sled ranged from 2.5 to 10.6 m/s. When the impact was a right lateral impact, at the highest sled acceleration, the left splenius capitis generated 47% of its maximal voluntary contraction (MVC), and the left trapezius also 46% of its MVC; the left and right sternocleidomastoid, right splenius capitis, and right trapezius generated 29% or less of their MVC. For the highest level of acceleration in a left lateral impact, the right splenius capitis generated 48% of its MVC and the right trapezius 57% of the MVC, the left and right sternocleidomastoid, left splenius capitis, and left trapezius generated 29% or less of their MVC. In both directions of impact, the contralateral splenius capitis and trapezius showed a statistically significant difference in the EMG response compared with other muscles (P < 0.05). For participants experiencing a frontal impact, whether straight-on, right or left anterolateral, the muscle responses increased with increasing levels of acceleration (P < 0.05). The time to onset and time to peak electromyogram for most muscles also showed a trend to progressively decrease with increasing levels of acceleration. In a straight-on frontal impact, the trapezii (TRPs) muscles showed the greatest EMG response compared with the remaining muscles (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with previously reported impact studies with a 5-point harness and rigid seat, the use of a 3-point lap and shoulder seat belt with car seat does not appear to adversely affect the cervical muscle response. In very-low- and low-velocity impact experiments, seat belt and seat type may thus not be particularly relevant to cervical EMG and kinematics.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.624
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueSpineSame topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207