Biomechanical Motion Analysis of Cervical and Thoracolumbar Spine During Ambulance Transport: A Healthy Volunteer Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Recent evidence suggests that long spine board (LSB) may do little to manage spinal motion, and pose increased risk. This project sought to measure cervical and thoracolumbar motion during ambulance transport. The hypothesis was transport on a mattress with the head elevated without the LSB would allow less spinal movement than transport on an LSB. Methods: A randomized healthy volunteer crossover trial measured spinal motion using biometric sensors. Positions analyzed included 0 and 10° on LSB. Stretcher alone with head elevated to 10°, 30°, 45° and 60°, with and without head blocks. Simulated ambulance transport was on city streets at or below posted speed limits. Results: Nine subjects were included, with 66% being male. For cervical movement, there was no difference in axial, flexion/extension, or rotation (0.2 ± 0.1 mm vs. 0.2 ± 0.1 mm, 24 ± 12 mm vs. 22 ± 10 mm, and 5.1 ± 19° vs. 5.8 ± 20°, respectively). There were significant differences in lateral (3.7 ± 7 mm LSB vs. 2.0 ± 5 mm no LSB) movement and volumetric movement of the head (120 ± 172 mm 3 LSB vs. 77 ± 86 mm 3 no LSB). Positions allowing the lowest mean cervical volume of head movement were bed elevated to 30° and 45° with head blocks, (20 ± 22 mm 3 and 12 ± 6 mm 3 , respectively). For thoracolumbar movement, there was no statistical difference in three-dimensional volumetric movement of the thoracolumbar spine (2 ± 0.6 mm 3 LSB vs. 4.7 ± 5 mm 3 no LSB). Conclusion: Spinal motion was small in all groups. The stretcher mattress without LSB allowed less cervical motion than the LSB. Subjects secured to a stretcher mattress with head of the bed elevated to 30° had the least spinal movement. J Neurol Res. 2020;10(3):73-79 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jnr587
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".