MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167598867 · doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2005.06.014

Cervical Muscle Response to Head Rotation in Whiplash-Type Right Lateral Impacts

2005· article· en· W2167598867 on OpenAlexaff
Shrawan Kumar, Robert Ferrari, Yogesh Narayan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTorsoWhiplashSternocleidomastoid muscleElectromyographyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnatomyPoison control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the electromyogram (EMG) response of the cervical muscles to a right lateral impact whiplash-type perturbation when the head is rotated. METHODS: Twenty healthy volunteers were subjected to right lateral impacts of 4.2, 8.1, 10.3, and 12.5 m/s2 and were looking either left or right. Bilateral EMGs of the sternocleidomastoid, trapezius, and splenius capitis muscles were recorded. Triaxial accelerometers recorded the acceleration of the chair, torso at the shoulder level, and head of the participant. RESULTS: In a right lateral impact, muscle responses were of low magnitude with the head rotated to either the left or the right. At the highest acceleration of 12.5 m/s2, all generated less than 39% of their maximal voluntary contraction EMG. The sternocleidomastoid muscle showed a greater EMG response than its counterpart and the muscles contralateral to the direction of impact had higher EMG responses. The time to onset of the EMG for the splenii capitis and trapezii generally decreased with increasing levels of acceleration. As anticipated, an increase in applied acceleration resulted in an increase in accompanying head accelerations (P < .05), and when the head acceleration increased, so too did the force equivalent exertions by the various muscles. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, a right lateral impact with head rotation to either right or left appears to reduce the activity and thus the risk of muscle injury, perhaps because of "bracing" by muscles actively producing rotation or because of greater spinal stability from other structures when the head is in the rotated position.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

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 head0.237
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.155 · 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

Citations5
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Manipulative and Physiological TherapeuticsSame topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207