MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082792624 · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2012.05.004

Assessment and validation of prognostic models for poor functional recovery 12 months after whiplash injury: A multicentre inception cohort study

2012· article· en· W2082792624 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Michele Sterling, Joan Hendrikz, Justin Kenardy, Eythor Kristjansson, Jean-Pierre Dumas, Ken Niere, Julie N. Côté, Sophie J DeSerres, Karine Rivest, Gwendolen Jull

Bibliographic record

VenuePain · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish Rehabilitation HospitalUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilAustralian Research CouncilRéseau Provincial de Recherche en Adaptation-Réadaptation
KeywordsWhiplashMedicineConfidence intervalCohortNeck painPhysical therapyProspective cohort studyCohort studyPoison controlPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryInternal medicineEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Uncertainty surrounds prognostic factors after whiplash injury. Previously we identified a prognostic model for 6-month pain-related disability in a cohort of 80 participants with acute whiplash. Predictors included initial disability, older age, decreased cold pain thresholds, decreased neck rotation movement, posttraumatic stress symptoms and decreased sympathetic vasoconstriction. The objective of this study was to externally validate this model. In a multicentre inception cohort study, 286 participants with acute whiplash (I, II or III) were assessed at <3 weeks and 12 months after injury. The Neck Disability Index (NDI) was the outcome. Observed and predicted NDI scores were generated using the published equation of the original model. Model discrimination between participants with no or mild disability from those with moderate to severe disability was examined by receiver operating characteristic curves. Initial NDI and cold pain threshold predicted current observed 12-month NDI scores (r(2) = 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.58). There was a significant site effect, and the estimated marginal mean ± SE of 12-month NDI for Iceland (27.6 ± 1.79%) was higher than the other 3 sites (Melbourne 11.2 ± 5.03%, Canada 16.4 ± 2.36%, Brisbane 16.8 ± 1.17%). After adjusting for site, age and Impact of Events Scale scores regained significance (r(2) = 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 0.64). The tested model was not precise in predicting NDI as a continuous variable. However, it found good accuracy to discriminate participants with moderate to severe disability at 12 months (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.89 [95% confidence interval 0.84-0.94], P<.001) which is clinically useful.

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)0.003
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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations68
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePainSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207