Prevalence of cardiac arrhythmias in a community based chiropractic practice.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of arrhythmias in chiropractic practice (the proportion of current patients who currently have arrhythmias) is unknown, but thought to be increasing. As arrhythmias influence management of chiropractic patients, the objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of screening for cardiac arrhythmias in a chiropractic clinic. METHODS: With a convenience sample from one clinic, ECG data were recorded and analyzed to identify arrhythmias. RESULTS: Seventy-six of ninety contacted patients participated in this study. Only 8 (∼26%) of 31 patients with known or suspected cardiovascular abnormalities demonstrated arrhythmias versus 7 (∼16%) of 45 subjects who were not previously aware of having an arrhythmia. CONCLUSION: The screening of patients for cardiac arrhythmias in a community based chiropractic clinic is feasible. A 3-minute recording of ECG activity at rest is not a highly sensitive method of identifying patients with previously recognized arrhythmias, but is capable of identifying previously undiagnosed arrhythmias.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".