A review of the definitions of ‘recovery’ used in prognostic studies on whiplash using an ICF framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to review the various definitions of recovery used in the prognostic whiplash literature to date, and to evaluate them from the framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). METHODS: Reference lists of previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the topic were reviewed and citations were retrieved. An updated Medline search was performed. Recovery rates and the method for operationalising recovery were extracted and evaluated for their fit within the ICF model of health. Descriptive statistics were calculated and presented. RESULTS: Thirty-one independent cohorts were identified. In total, 30 different primary methods for defining recovery were described in the sample of literature. Eighty-three percent of the primary outcomes fit within the body structure and function domain of the ICF. Restricted participation was the second most common domain represented, followed by activity limitations. Even within each domain, there is wide variability in the cut-off values for dichotomising a group as recovered or not. CONCLUSIONS: The wide range of recovery rates reported in the literature can be at least partly accounted for by the lack of a standardised definition of recovery after acute whiplash. The emphasis on symptoms in the current literature neglects other important aspects of health as described by the ICF.
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 | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".