Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this article are (1) to review current knowledge of and recent concepts pertaining to the causes of chronic pain and/or dysfunction following whiplash-type injuries and (2) to acquaint those who treat these types of injuries with possible mechanisms of continued pain and or dysfunction following whiplash. DATA COLLECTION: A review of the literature on mechanisms of injury and neurologic considerations was undertaken. A hand search of relevant medical, neuroscience, chiropractic, and online Index Medicus sources and other sources involving mechanisms of nociception, neurotransmitters, and receptors that might evolve from whiplash-type soft tissue injuries was conducted. RESULTS: Pain is a complex phenomenon that has great variability. Chronic pain appears to involve a deficient descending inhibitory process and/or ongoing excitatory input. CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide variety of reactions by individuals to any given type of stimulus. Injury may lead to increases in neuronal activity and prolonged changes in the nervous system. Chronic pain may be seen as part of a central disturbance accompanied by disinhibition or sensitization of central pain modulation, mirrored in the immune and endocrine systems. Patients with chronic whiplash syndrome may have a generalized central hyperexcitability from a loss of tonic inhibitory input (disinhibition) and/or ongoing excitatory input contributing to dorsal horn hyperexcitability. Dysfunction of the motor system may also occur, with or without pain. The purpose of treatment should be not only to relieve pain but also to allow for proper proprioception.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".