Review of existing measurement tools to assess spinal motion during prehospital immobilization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The quantification of spinal movement to investigate the efficacy of prehospital immobilization devices and techniques remains difficult. Therefore, we aim to systematically review the literature on reported measurement tools applicable within this research field. A keyword literature search of relevant articles was performed using the database of PubMed including international literature published in English between January 2010 and December 2015. Only studies describing methods applicable to estimate spinal movement during prehospital immobilization were included. Six measurement tools were found that have either been used (goniometer/inclinometer, imaging modalities, electromagnetic systems, and optoelectronic systems) or have the potential to be used (inertial measurement units and a combination of strain gauge technology and accelerometers) in this research field. Novel devices can assess spinal motion during prehospital care including extrication, application of immobilization devices, and transportation from the site of the accident to the final destination, and therefore can be considered for usage.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".