Use of a Shear Reduction Surface for Prehospital Transport: A Randomized Crossover Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of an antishear mattress overlay (ASMO) with a standard ambulance stretcher surface in reducing pressure and shear and increasing patient comfort. METHODS: In this randomized, crossover design, adults in three body mass index categories served as their own controls. Pressure/shear sensors were applied to the sacrum, ischial tuberosity, and heel. The stretcher was placed in sequential 0°, 15°, and 30° head-of-bed elevations with and without an ASMO. The ambulance traveled a closed course, achieving 30 mph, with five stops at each head-of-bed elevation. Participants rated discomfort after each series of five runs. RESULTS: Thirty individuals participated. Each participant had 30 runs (15 with an ASMO, 15 without), for a total of 900 trial runs. The peak-to-peak shear difference between support surfaces was -0.03 N, indicating that after adjustment for elevation, sensor location, and body mass index, peak shear levels at baseline (starting pause) were 0.03 N lower for the ASMO than for the standard surface ( P = .02). The peak-to-peak pressure difference between surfaces was -0.16 mm Hg, indicating that prerun peak-to-peak pressure was 0.16 mm Hg lower with the ASMO versus standard surface ( P = .002). The heel received the most pressure and shear. Discomfort score distributions differed between surfaces at 0° ( P = .004) and 30° ( P = .01); the overall score across all elevations was significantly higher with the standard surface than with the ASMO ( P = .046). CONCLUSIONS: The ASMO reduced shear, pressure, and discomfort. During transport, the ambulance team should provide additional heel offloading.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".