O-293 MOTIONLESS SUSPENSION IN FULL-BODY HARNESSES: PERCEIVED DISCOMFORT, STRAP PRESSURE AND PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSE OF HUMAN SUBJECTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Falls from height are one of the leading causes of occupational injuries in most countries. A way of protecting workers against falls from height is to choose personal fall arrest systems, which implies the wear of a safety harness. Following a fall arrest, motionless suspension in a full-body harness can be hazardous and lead to death due to suspension trauma syndrome, which has long been known. This paper investigates the perception of discomfort, the pressure exerted by the straps on the body and the evolution of physiological parameters in 10-minute motionless suspension. Materials and Methods For this study, 30 male and 30 female were suspended from the dorsal D-ring, in four different commercial harnesses (one X, one Y and two H configuration harnesses). During suspension, participants rated their perceived discomfort on a visual analog scale for different body regions every 2 minutes and physiological parameters were recorded continuously throughout the suspension. Pressures exerted by the straps were measured for a short period using pressure mats. Results and discussion The results show that H-configuration harnesses, which are very common in the construction industry and often the cheapest models, are perceived to be the least tolerable in suspension. Moreover, H-configuration harnesses lead to greater reduction in muscular blood oxygenation and greater increase in the heart rate, which could make this type of harness hazardous for prolonged motionless suspension. The Y-configuration harness seems to be the best performer in suspension. The X-configuration creates a constriction effect around the neck during motionless suspension, which causes a significant increase in heart rate and decrease in cerebral oximetry.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".