Association between Body Mass Index and Recovery from Whiplash Injuries: A Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is hypothesized that excess weight is a risk factor for delayed recovery from neck pain, such as from whiplash injuries. However, the association between obesity and recovery from whiplash injury has not been studied. The authors examined the association between body mass index and time to recovery from whiplash injuries in a population-based cohort study of traffic injuries in Saskatchewan, Canada. The cohort included 4,395 individuals who made an insurance claim to Saskatchewan Government Insurance and were treated for whiplash injury between July 1, 1994, and December 31, 1995. Of those, 87.7% had recovered by November 1, 1997. No association was found between baseline body mass index and time to recovery. Compared with individuals with normal weight, those who were underweight (hazard rate ratio = 0.88, 95% confidence interval: 0.73, 1.06), overweight (hazard rate ratio = 1.01, 95% confidence interval: 0.94, 1.09), and obese (hazard rate ratio = 0.99, 95% confidence interval: 0.90, 1.08) had similar rates of recovery, even after adjustment for other factors. The results do not support the hypothesis that individuals who are overweight or obese have a worse prognosis for whiplash.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".