Ten years of major equestrian injury: are we addressing functional outcomes?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Horseback riding is considered more dangerous than motorcycle riding, skiing, automobile racing, football and rugby. The integral role of rehabilitation therapy in the recovery of patients who have sustained a major horse-related injury is previously not described. The goals of this paper were to (1) define the incidence and pattern of severe equestrian trauma, (2) identify the current level of in-patient rehabilitation services, (3) describe functional outcomes for patients, and (4) discuss methods for increasing rehabilitation therapy in this unique population. METHODS AND RESULTS: A retrospective review of the trauma registry at a level 1 center (1995-2005) was completed in conjunction with a patient survey outlining formal in-hospital therapy. Forty-nine percent of patients underwent in-patient rehabilitation therapy. Injuries predictive of receiving therapy included musculoskeletal and spinal cord trauma. Previous injury while horseback riding was predictive of not receiving therapy. The majority (55%) of respondents had chronic physical difficulties following their accident. CONCLUSION: Rehabilitation therapy is significantly underutilized following severe equestrian trauma. Increased therapy services should target patients with brain, neck and skull injuries. Improvements in the initial provision, and follow-up of rehabilitation therapy could enhance functional outcomes in the treatment resistant Western equestrian population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it