MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Systematic Review of the Prognosis of Acute Whiplash and a New Conceptual Framework to Synthesize the Literature

2001· review· en· W2081181205 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhiplashMedicineSystematic reviewNeck painPopulationCohortPhysical therapyMEDLINEPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPoison controlAlternative medicineMedical emergencyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of prognostic studies of acute whiplash. OBJECTIVES: To update the systematic review on the prognosis of acute whiplash published by the Quebec Task Force on Whiplash-Associated Disorders and to propose a new conceptual framework to conduct systematic reviews on prognosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In 1995, the Quebec Task Force published a systematic review of the literature on whiplash and concluded that its prognosis is favorable. However, few prognostic factors were identified. Recent studies have added to this knowledge, and there is a need to update the review conducted by the Quebec Task Force. METHODS: A bibliographic search of four electronic databases was performed to identify prognostic studies of acute whiplash published after 1995. The literature was appraised with standard review criteria. The consistency of evidence across studies was assessed. A conceptual framework was designed to classify the literature according to methodologic quality, target population, and phases of investigation. RESULTS: Thirteen cohort studies were included in the review. The framework used in this study demonstrates that most of the recent prognostic studies are descriptive in nature. The prognosis of acute whiplash varies according to the population sampled and the insurance/compensation system under which individuals are allowed to claim benefits. Besides age, gender, baseline neck pain intensity, baseline headache intensity, and baseline radicular signs and symptoms, there is little consistency in the literature about the prognostic factors for the recovery of whiplash. CONCLUSIONS: Scant knowledge about the prognosis of whiplash has been gained since the release of the Quebec Task Force report. However, it is becoming obvious that the insurance and compensation systems have a large impact on recovery from acute whiplash injuries. The conceptual framework used in this study demonstrates that large cohort studies investigating a wide range of prognostic factors are necessary to improve the understanding of this problem.

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.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.312 · 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