Do the management and functional outcomes of the surgically treated spinal fractures change in suicidal jumpers?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to determine the effect of trauma etiology on the management, functional outcomes and psychiatric characteristics of suicide jumpers and patients who accidentally fall from height. METHODS: 89 patients (48 accidental falls and 41 suicidal jumpers) who had undergone spinal surgery were included in the study. The patients were evaluated clinically and radiologically. Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) were performed for functional evaluation. BECK hopelessness scale (BHS), BECK depression inventory (BDI), and SF-36 scales were used for the psychiatric evaluation. All outcomes were compared between suicidal jumpers and accidental falls. RESULTS: The RMDQ and ODI questionnaires stated a higher disability in the suicide jump group (p = 0.001 and p = 0.029, respectively). However, the VAS and MPQ questionnaires did not differ in significance between groups (p = 0.182 and p = 0.306, respectively). The SF-36 scale showed that physical function, role emotional, vitality and mental health subdomains were worse in the suicide jump group (p = 0.001, p = 0.029, p = 0.014 and p = 0.030, respectively). BDI scores were significantly higher in the suicide jump group while no difference was observed between the groups in terms of BSH (p = 0.017 and p = 0.940, respectively). CONCLUSION: Psychiatric disorders are more common in patients in the suicidal jumpers. The presence of underlying psychiatric problems adversely affects the postoperative functional outcomes of patients with surgically treated spinal fractures. A multidisciplinary approach together with raising awareness in this way can improve the clinical outcomes after orthopedic treatment, even if there is physical disability.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".