MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402448757 · doi:10.1080/13588265.2024.2371185

Evaluation of a novel head and neck restraint for harness-restrained children

2024· article· en· W4402448757 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew R. Maltese, Avital Eran, Ben Cohen Gazit, Oleg Safir

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Crashworthiness · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoFPInnovations
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHead and neckPoison controlHead (geology)Injury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationOccupational safety and healthSuicide preventionMedicineForensic engineeringEngineeringMedical emergencySurgeryGeologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motor Vehicle Crashes (MVCs) are a common source of neck injury and, although rare, catastrophic neck injury occurs in restrained children up to age 10 years old. Recently, a head/neck support (HNS) that cradles the head during sleep was developed. The objective of this study was to determine if the HNS improves injury criteria measured on anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) in front facing 5-point harness child restraint systems (FFCRS). Nineteen matched pair frontal impact sled tests were conducted with ATDs representing the 12 month old, or 3 or 6 year old child in FFCRS. HNS reduced HIC36 by median 22.2%, maximum resultant head acceleration (3ms clip) by 16.2%, head excursion by 8.2%, and neck tension by 12.2%. Providing supplemental restraint directly to the head has the potential to improve injury outcomes while not adding to harm during common misuse scenarios, but further research is needed to determine if these benefits persist in real-world crashes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of CrashworthinessSame topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207