MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283712130 · doi:10.1186/s13049-022-01031-3

Removal of the cervical collar from alpine rescue protocols? A biomechanical non-inferiority trial in real-life mountain conditions

2022· article· en· W4283712130 on OpenAlexafffund
Guillaume Grenier, Marc‐Antoine Despatis, Karina Lebel, Mathieu Hamel, Camille Martin, Patrick Boissy

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWinter Sports Injuries and Performance
Canadian institutionsHealth and Social Services Centre University Institute of Geriatrics of SherbrookeCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of SydneyUniversité de Sherbrooke
KeywordsCollarCervical spineCervical collarMedicineNuclear medicineGeologySurgeryEngineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Alpine skiing rescues are challenging because of the mountainous environment and risks of cervical spine motion (CSM) induced during victims’ extrications (EXs) and downhill evacuations (DEs). The benefits of applying a cervical collar (CC) over manual in-line stabilization without CC (MILS) in terms of spinal motion restriction during simulated alpine rescues are undocumented. Our hypothesis was that CSM recorded using MILS alone is non-inferior to CSM recorded with a CC according to a 10 degrees margin. Methods A total of 32 alpine extrications and 4 downhill evacuations on different slope conditions were performed using a high fidelity mannequin designed with a motion sensors instrumented cervical spine. The primary outcome was the peak extrication 3D excursion angle (Peak 3D θ EX, ) of the mannequin’s head. The secondary objectives were to describe the time to extrication completion (tEX) and to highlight which extrication manipulation is more likely to induce CSM. Results The median Peak 3D θ EX recorded during flat terrain extrications using CC was 10.77° (95% CI 7.31°–16.45°) compared to 13.06° (95% CI 10.20°–30.36°) using MILS, and 16.09° (95% CI 9.07°–37.43°) for CC versus 16.65° (95% CI 13.80°–23.40°) using MILS on a steep slope. Peak 3D θ EX with CC or using MILS during extrications were equivalent according to a 10 degrees non-inferiority hypothesis testing ( p < 0.05). Time to extrication completion (tEX) was significantly reduced using MILS without CC on a flat terrain with a median duration of 237,3 s (95% CI 197.8 s, 272.2 s) compared to 358.7 s (95% CI 324.1 s, 472.4 s). During downhill evacuations, CSM with and without CC across all terrain conditions were negligible (< 5°). When CC is used; its installation manipulation 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 spinal motion restriction provided by CC over MILS during alpine skiing rescues appear to be marginal and CC use negatively affects rescue time.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.468
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.317 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation and Emergency MedicineSame topicWinter Sports Injuries and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207