MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mandibular kinematics associated with simulated low‐velocity rear‐end impacts

2006· article· en· W2031143499 on OpenAlexaff
Ivonne A. Hernández, K.R. Fyfe, Giseon Heo, Paul W. Major

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Oral Rehabilitation · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Trauma and Fracture Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAngular accelerationAccelerationAngular velocityKinematicsRotation (mathematics)PhysicsMandible (arthropod mouthpart)OrthodonticsMedicineGeometryMathematicsBiologyClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rear-end-impact motor vehicle accidents may result in cervical and temporomandibular-related pain complaints. Head kimematics in simulated low-impact rear-end impacts have been investigated but mandibular kinematics have not been described. Thirty healthy adult subjects underwent three impacts (4.5 m s(-2) expected, 10.0 m s(-2) unexpected, and 10.0 m s(-2) expected). Onset time and peak magnitude of angular head acceleration, angular mandibular acceleration and angular mandibular displacement were measured. Significant mandibular opening acceleration was not identified with rearward head rotation. The peak magnitude of mandibular closing angular acceleration approximately doubled with increased impact magnitude. No differences in peak angular mandibular acceleration regarding expectation were identified. Gender differences were detected in the fast unexpected impact. The peak time for the angular mandibular acceleration (mandibular closure) was approximately 84-120 ms later than peak rearward angular head acceleration for all impacts. Onset and peak times for angular mandibular acceleration (mandibular closure) were similar to the onset and peak times for forward head acceleration. There was also a positive correlation between the magnitude of the forward angular acceleration of the head and angular acceleration of the mandible for the slow (0.65, P = 0.015) and fast expected (0.844, P = 0.001) impacts. The average angular mandibular angular displacement (mandibular closure) was approximately 6 degrees . The hyperextension hypothesis regarding mechanism of temporomandibular joint injury in low-impact rear-end collisions cannot be supported.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Oral RehabilitationSame topicFacial Trauma and Fracture ManagementFrench-language works237,207