Bibliographic record
Abstract
The WAD grading system has been used for more than 20 years by now. It has shown long-term viability, but with strengths and limitations. New bio-psychosocial assessment of the acute whiplash injured subject may provide better prediction of long-term disability and pain. Furthermore, the emerging role of pre-existing genetic risk factors, and the roles of underreported pre-existing pain and both the long-term follow up studies on whiplash injury, but also recently applied in a large (DANFUND) population study of more than 10,000 previously healthy subjects, now with more than 2-year follow-up. It is important to obtain prospective identification of the relevant risk underreported disability could, if we were able to expose these hidden “risk-factors” during our consultations, provide us with better predictive models. New data from large clinical studies will present exciting new genetic risk markers of long-term disability after whiplash injury in accordance with new animal studies of posttraumatic pain development. The Danish Whiplash Study Group Risk Assessment Score and 7 risk strata have been studied in factors for development of long-term and often widespread pain and chronic disablement after these minor neck injuries.
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 | 0.051 | 0.195 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
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".