MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889776575 · doi:10.1093/annweh/wxy043

OUP accepted manuscript

2018· article· en· W2889776575 on OpenAlexaff
Marcus Yung, Liana M. Tennant, Stephan Milosavljevic, Catherine Trask

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Work Exposures and Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEffects of Vibration on Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatchewan Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhole body vibrationMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyOccupational safety and healthRehabilitationPoison controlRating of perceived exertionInjury preventionEnvironmental healthVibration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Exposure to whole body vibration (WBV) is common in construction, agriculture, mining, and transportation. There is strong epidemiological evidence linking WBV with adverse health outcomes in the long-term, including low back pain. Fortunately, WBV exposure guidelines to prevent long-term musculoskeletal disorders and discomfort exist. In the shorter-term, it has been speculated that occupational levels of WBV may lead to increased risk of vehicle accidents and falls during egress; however, the acute effects of different vibration intensities remain poorly understood and it is uncertain whether established standards protect the worker from injurious short-term effects. Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the acute sensorimotor, physical, and cognitive effects of occupationally-relevant, simulated whole body vibration (WBV) at levels equivalent to international standard guideline thresholds for long-term discomfort and musculoskeletal disorder risk. Method: Eighteen participants were recruited to perform four, 60-min conditions: (i) Control-no vibration, (ii) Low vibration-equivalent to the exposure action value, (iii) Shock-transient impacts at 1-min intervals superimposed on the Low condition, and (iv) High vibration-equivalent to the exposure limit value. Whole body vibration was simulated using data based on field-collected accelerations experienced by rural workers while operating an all-terrain vehicle. This vibration signal was manipulated to achieve required intensities for each condition and simulated with a 6 degree-of-freedom hexapod platform. Before and after each condition, we collected: rating of perceived body discomfort, rating of perceived headache, postural sway, blink frequency, King-Devick test, and psychomotor vigilance task. Pre- and post-condition data in each condition were submitted to either a paired t-test (parametric) or Wilcoxon signed-rank test (non-parametric). To determine differences between conditions, each condition's post-condition data was normalized to its pre-condition value and entered as the dependent variable in a repeated measures analysis of variance. Results: All conditions, including Control, led to increased upper body discomfort when compared to pre-exposure baseline. The Low condition led to increased discomfort in seven body locations, headache (91% increase from baseline; t = -2.44, P = 0.03), and postural imbalance (53% increase from baseline; t = -2.88, P = 0.01), but the effect on cognitive functioning was less clear. Shock condition led to whole body discomfort, specifically at nine upper body and lower body locations. The High condition led to increased whole body discomfort at all 10 body locations, headache (154% increase from baseline; t = -2.91, P = 0.01), postural imbalance (61% increase from baseline; t = -2.57, P = 0.02), and decrements in vigilance (mean reaction time: 6% increase from baseline, t = -3.27, P = 0.005; Number of lapses: 100% increase from baseline, S = -42.5, P = 0.002). Conclusion: Although the number of pre-post condition effects increased with higher vibration intensity, these effects were not significantly different from sitting without vibration. Therefore, current guideline thresholds might not protect the worker from acute WBV effects. However, further research is needed to discern these effects from other sources of WBV. Based on this study, future WBV interventions and action controls should not only address vibration reduction, but also consider potential effects from prolonged sitting.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.8440.790

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.260 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Work Exposures and HealthSame topicEffects of Vibration on HealthFrench-language works237,207