Cervical spine motion during patient transfer onto a long spine board
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"The initial management stages of a suspected spinal cord injury are crucial. Currently there is a void in the literature with regards to the proper timing of neck realignment for prone patient transfer methods. The purpose of this study was to determine if the timing of neck realignment and/or the size of the victim will have an influence the amount of cervical spine motion during the prone log roll technique. A team of five Athletic Therapists performed 18 log rolls (9 on two trained "victims"), randomly correcting neck realignment AFTER and DURING the roll as well as the timing of their choice, for both supine and prone conditions. Motion of the cervical spine was collected using accelerometers and electromyography (EMG) was used to collect muscle activity of neck stabilizers. Comparisons were made for range, additional motion, theoretical minimal required motion and maximum EMG values. There were no significant differences found for the timing of neck realignment for motion and muscle activation, but there were significant differences found between male and female victims for both motion and muscle activation. These findings will help enhance knowledge of transfer techniques as well as help develop proper training techniques for primary stage management personnel."
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".