MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Correlating head kinematics and cervical cerebrospinal fluid pressure transients in simulated whiplash exposures

2025· article· en· W4414723463 on OpenAlexafffund
Nikoo Soltan, Mats Y. Svensson, Claire F. Jones, Peter A. Cripton, Gunter P. Siegmund

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomechanics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSpinal Cord Injury BC
FundersMaryland Energy AdministrationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsWhiplashKinematicsBiomechanicsCerebrospinal fluid pressureCervical spineNeck musclesHead and neckCadaver

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The origin and mechanics of whiplash injury from motor vehicle collisions are poorly understood. Among the proposed injury mechanisms, the inertial loading of the head and neck during whiplash exposures is theorized to produce injurious cerebrospinal fluid pressure (CSFP) transients. To better understand the mechanics and modal behavior of CSFP transients during whiplash exposures, we quantified the time-frequency relationship between input head kinematics and cervical CSFP responses in an in vivo pig model. Wavelet coherence analysis was used to correlate seven head kinematic parameters (including temporal Neck Injury Criterion, NIC) with CSFP during simulated extension and flexion whiplash exposures. Overall, the first and last 50 ms of exposures, and frequency ranges between 30-65 Hz had larger coherences between head kinematics and CSFP, with higher coherences in extension exposures than flexion exposures. NIC did not universally outperform other head kinematic parameters as a correlate of CSFP. These findings highlight the complexity of the dynamics involved in generating CSFP transients in the cervical spine during whiplash exposures.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of BiomechanicsSame topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207