Physiology and biomechanics of prone restraint respiration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a debate over whether the effect of prone restraint on respiration can lead to cardiac arrest. In itself, the prone or prone restrained posture does not likely compromise ventilation to any clinically significant degree for a detainee who is passive and calm, as a number of prone restraint studies have shown. However, these studies were not able to replicate an anxious, distressed or intoxicated (alcohol or drugs) detainee who is struggling and being actively held down. This review examines the physiology and biomechanics of respiration, highlighting the differences between upright position respiration and prone respiration and the effect of restraint on respiration. In addition, the findings of research on the effects of struggling, obesity, anxiety or panic and drug intoxication on the consequent carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) production and the work of breathing are presented. The limitations which each of these factors place on the ability to remove CO 2 from the blood are discussed. The evidence suggests that severe respiratory or metabolic acidosis could arise as the result of the combined effects of several factors and that cardiac arrest, if it occurs, would be more likely due to hypercapnia than hypoxia.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".