Relative Contribution of Lower Body Work as a Biomechanical Determinant of Spine Sparing Technique During Common Paramedic Lifting Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Paramedics represent a unique occupational group where the nature of their work, providing prehospital emergency care, makes workplace modifications to manage and control injury risks difficult. Therefore, the provision of workplace education and training to support safe lifting remains a viable and important approach. There is, however, a lack of evidence describing movement strategies that may be optimal for paramedic work. The purpose of this study was to determine if a strategy leveraging a greater contribution of work from the lower body relative to the torso was associated with lower biomechanical exposures on the spine. Twenty-five active duty paramedics performed 3 simulated lifting activities common to paramedic work. Ground reaction forces and whole body kinematics were recorded to calculate: peak spine moment and angle about the L4/L5 flexion-extension axis as indicators of biomechanical exposure; and, joint work, integrated from net joint power as a measure of technique inclusive of movement dynamics. Paramedics generating more work from the lower body, relative to the trunk, were more likely to experience lower peak L4/L5 spine moments and angles. These data can inform the development of workplace training and education on safe lifting that focuses on paramedics generating more work from the lower body.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".