Anthropometric characteristics and traffic accident circumstances of patients with isolated whiplash injury in University Clinical Hospital Mostar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p><strong>Aim<br /></strong> To investigate anthropometric characteristics and traffic accident circumstances of subjects with isolated whiplash injury. <strong>Methods<br /></strong> This cross sectional study involved 75 subjects from traffic accidents with isolated whiplash injury classified by Quebec Task Force (QTF). Anthropometric data were collected as well as claims about circumstances of traffic accidents. <br /><strong>Results<br /></strong> Distribution of 1 st (28; 37.3%), 2 nd (25; 33.3%) and 3 rd (22; 29.3%) grade of whiplash injury was almost equal. Females had smaller anthropometric measurements than males; neck circumference was the most significant difference between males and females in the context of whiplash injury. The most frequent collision mechanism was impact to front (26; 34.7%) or to rear end (26; 34.7%) of a small passenger's car. Assertions of participants were that their car damage was significant (37; 49.2%) or total (24; 32%). A total of 38 (50.7%) participants claimed that they were not wearing safety belt and 52 (69.3%) did not find themselves responsible for accident. <br /><strong>Conclusion<br /></strong> Driving habits of our participants facilitate incidence of whiplash injuries, especially in vulnerable groups such as women and elderly.</p>
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".