Clearing the Cervical Spine in a War Zone: What Other Injuries Matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cervical spine clearance requires clinicians to assess the reliability of physical examination based on a patient's mental status and distracting injuries. Distracting injuries have never been clearly defined in military casualties. METHODS: Retrospective review was conducted of patients entered into Department of Defense Trauma Registry January 2008 to August 2013, identifying blunt trauma patients with cervical spine injury and Glasgow Coma Score ≥ 14. Physical examination and radiology results were abstracted from medical records and injury diagnoses were obtained from Department of Defense Trauma Registry. Groups were compared, p-value of < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 149 patients met study criteria; 20 patients (13%) had a negative clinical examination of the cervical spine. Coexisting injuries identified in patients with negative physical examination included injuries in proximity to the neck (head, thoracic spine, chest, or humerus) in 17 (85%) patients. In 3 patients (15%), coexisting injuries were not in proximity to the neck and included pelvic, femur, and tibia fractures. All patients without coexisting injury (n = 37) had a positive physical examination. CONCLUSION: Physical examination of multitrauma casualties with neck injury may be unreliable when distracting injuries are present. When no distracting injuries were present, the physical examination was accurate in all patients.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".