Planking or the “Lying-Down Game:” Two Case Reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The monitoring and management of risks regarding children and young people admitted to the emergency department as a result of dangerous behaviors distributed via the Internet should be based on clinical reasoning and knowledge about these social media-related phenomena. Here we examine 2 cases of teenagers who reported severe injuries while performing the "planking" craze, a challenge that consists in lying face-down stiffly like a board on any kind of surface. OBJECTIVE: Our objective is to examine and describe the Internet craze called planking, also known as the "lying-down game," through 2 case reports from our experience, enriching this study with information gained through discussions with secondary school teenagers. METHODS: Details of the 2 case reports were taken from electronic medical records giving information on care support processes, care management, and the costs of traumatic episodes. Demographic data, hemoglobin and serum lactate values, and Injury Severity Scores were evaluated. The study took place in secondary schools of our city from 2013 to 2014 during medical education courses, with the aim of analyzing the influence of social media on teenagers' activities and behaviors. RESULTS: Both patients suffered multiple trauma injuries and needed high-level health assistance. The first patient underwent a splenectomy and the second one a nephrectomy; both of them required a long hospital stay (14 and 20 days, respectively), and the costs for their management have been estimated at US $27,000 and US $37,000, respectively. Their decision to perform the planking in dangerous locations was due to their ambition to gain peers' acclaim through shared videos and pictures. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting and understanding these cases may potentially help prevent future events occurring in similar circumstances: the scientific community cannot leave this problem unaddressed. There is also a role of education resources for health care professionals; for this, we must identify and follow up strange or misleading information found on websites. A key element of this research study was to report physicians' misperceptions concerning planking and, with these cases used for teaching purposes, improve knowledge of the clinical and forensic aspects of this emerging problem.
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 | 0.027 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".