MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2625520397 · doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7455

An Integrated Model of Chronic Whiplash-Associated Disorder

2017· article· en· W2625520397 on OpenAlexaffabout
David M. Walton, James M. Elliott

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsWhiplashTask (project management)MedicinePresentation (obstetrics)Intervention (counseling)Applied psychologyHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlCognitive psychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedical emergencyPsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Synopsis The development of persistent symptoms following whiplash injury from a motor vehicle collision is common and contributes substantially to societal and personal costs. The popular Quebec Task Force classification system of whiplash-associated disorders (WADs) was meant to function as a prognostic and intervention decision aid, but its usefulness has been questioned. Emerging evidence highlights the heterogeneity of WAD by demonstrating physical and psychological impairments that are unique to those who develop persistent symptoms. These impairments are not recognized in the Quebec Task Force classification system. The purpose of this clinical commentary is to describe an integrated model that focuses on how psychological and neurobiological factors interact with, and are influenced by, existing personal and environmental factors to contribute to the development of chronic WAD. The model has been developed through more than 20 years of work in the field, consultation with experts, in-depth synthesis of existing evidence, and new evidence from the authors' own research programs. A subtheme is that a point of convergence currently exists between the psychological, physiological, and social determinants of health literature that can further explain the complex presentation of WAD. The new model is proposed to orient future research toward more interdisciplinary efforts across nontraditional fields, including data scientists and consumers, to clarify the WAD condition. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(7):462-471. Epub 16 Jun 2017. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7455.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations64
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical TherapySame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207