MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2464659516

Whiplash injuries: clinical picture and diagnostic work-up.

2000· article· en· W2464659516 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Giorgio Bono, Fabio Antonaci, S Ghirmai, Fabio D’Angelo, Martin D. Berger, Giuseppe Nappi

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhiplashMedicineNeck painPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPalpationPhysical examinationCervicogenic headacheRehabilitationPoison controlCervical spineSurgeryMedical emergency
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The term "whiplash" commonly refers to symptoms and signs associated with a mechanical event such as a sudden acceleration and deceleration of the neck (due, in the majority of cases, to a road accident), instead of to the mechanism itself. The recent Quebec Classification of Whiplash Associated Disorders (WAD) contributed to define nosographically all the clinical manifestations usually grouped under the terms acute/post-traumatic and late "syndrome". In the late phase of WAD, neck pain and neck muscle contraction have been reported in all cases, together with headache in over 50%. "Headache stemming from the neck", despite numerous attempts to classify this entity (i.e. cervicogenic headache) according to the IASP classification (headache associated with neck disorders), is still a subject of debate. An adequate multiparametric procedure is required to study WAD, which takes into account: the patient's principal details; an exact reconstruction of the event; description and analysis of the signs and symptoms, with various complications and correlated dysfunctions; an objective neurological and neck-shoulder examination; and a battery of complementary instrumental tests which are described in this study. These investigations include evaluation of muscle tension (manual palpation, algometry, EMG recording), kinematic analysis of the cervical spine, neuropsychological and psychological evaluation, and evaluation of disability. In order to assess cervical spine mobility in WAD patients, a 3D kinematic analysis by means of the ELITE system and clinical evaluation were performed in our setting. Seventy patients with whiplash injury and 46 healthy volunteers were enrolled in the study. Patients were tested at the time of first consultation and again 6 months and 12 months later. Clinical evaluation of the range of motion was performed both in patients and in 41 healthy volunteers. Furthermore, patients diagnosed according to the WAD Classification as grade 2 (n = 68) or grade 3 (16) underwent a Quality of life (QoL) evaluation, measured using the short form (36-item) Health Survey (SF36) and the migraine-specific questionnaire (MSQ). According to our data, whiplash patients showed an impairment of cervical spine mobility, as well as a poor QoL, compared to a control group population, even though we observed a trend towards improvement over time in cervical ROM.

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)0.001
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 score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations31
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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