MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200424918 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1121779/v1

Removal of the Cervical Spine Collar from Alpine Extrication and Evacuation Skiing Rescue Spinal Motion Restriction Protocols: A Biomechanical Controlled Study in Real-Life Mountain Conditions with a High-Fidelity Mannequin

2021· preprint· en· W4200424918 on OpenAlexaffabout
Guillaume Grenier, Marc‐Antoine Despatis, Karina Lebel, Mathieu Hamel, Camille Martin, Patrick Boissy

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWinter Sports Injuries and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollarCervical collarFidelityCervical spineMotion (physics)Alpine skiingPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAeronauticsMedicineComputer scienceEngineeringSurgeryTelecommunicationsArtificial intelligenceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Alpine skiing rescues are unique because of the mountainous environment and risks of cervical spine motion (CSM) induced during victims’ extrication (EX) and downhill evacuation (DE). Current pre-hospital guidelines recommend the application of full spinal immobilization using various orthotic devices such as cervical collars (CC) when mobilizing and transfer+ring a victim with a suspected spine injury. The biomechanical benefits of applying CC in terms of spinal motion restriction during simulated alpine rescue are undocumented. Methods: Observational design of CSM measurement on a high-fidelity simulation mannequin with a motion sensors-instrumented cervical spine during simulated alpine skiing EX and DE. A total of 32 EXs and 4 DEs on different slope conditions were performed by six experienced active ski patrollers at a Canadian ski resort. The primary outcome was the 3D excursion vector (PeakΔθ) of the mannequin’s head. The secondary objectives were the time to extrication completion (tEX) depending on CC use and to identify which EX event is more likely to induce CSM. Results: PeakΔθ recorded during flat terrain EX using CC was 11.71° +/- 3.61° compared to 16.00° +/- 7.93° using MILS, and 18.29° +/- 9.78° for CC versus 17.90° +/- 4.16° using MILS on a steep slope. PeakΔθ with CC or using MILS during EXs were equivalent according to a 10 degrees non-inferiority hypothesis testing. Time to extrication completion (tEX) was significantly higher using CC as opposed to MILS for both flat and steep terrain conditions (100.6s vs. 219.2s and 106.2s vs. 268.8s longer respectively, 95% confidence interval). During DEs, CSM with and without CC across all terrain conditions were negligible (<5°). Task analysis during EX showed that when CC is used, its installation induces the highest CSM. When EXs are done using MILS without CC, the logroll initiation is the manipulation inducing the highest risk of CSM. Conclusion: For experienced ski patrollers, the biomechanical benefits of motion restriction provided by CC over MILS during alpine skiing rescues were found to be at best marginal and CC use negatively affected rescue time. Systematic use of CC during alpine rescue should be reconsidered.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicWinter Sports Injuries and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207