MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098671762

Assessment of stability of the cervical spine in blunt trauma patients: review of the literature, with presentation and preliminary results of a modified traction test protocol.

2004· article· en· W2098671762 on OpenAlexaffabout
Drew A. Bednar, Badriya Toorani, Matthew Denkers, Hesham Abdelbary

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlunt traumaBluntProspective cohort studyCervical spineSurgeryTraction (geology)Presentation (obstetrics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To review the reported efficacy of various imaging techniques in assessing stability of the neck in blunt trauma patients, and to present the protocol and preliminary results of a modified traction test protocol. DESIGN: This is a prospective cohort study. SETTING: A regional trauma unit in Southern Ontario. PATIENTS: People with blunt-trauma injuries who came to the author's consultant practice with "C-spine not cleared" status, from January 2001 through December 2003. INTERVENTIONS: A fluoroscopically controlled test of axial traction followed by flexion/extension stressing. OUTCOME MEASURES: Radiographic confirmation of the absence of pathological motion under load. RESULTS: In 51 cases studied to date, no instabilities have been found. Four cases of minor ligamentous hypermobility have been detected, with stability confirmed and no surgery required. There have been no failures to depict the neck completely, no missed instabilities and no complications of the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Cervical stability can be reliably confirmed with this test without any requirement for advanced imaging technology.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations8
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207