Assessing effects of a semi-customized experimental cervical pillow on symptomatic adults with chronic neck pain with and without headache.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of a semi-customized experimental cervical pillow on symptomatic adults with chronic neck pain (with and without headache) during a four week study. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial. SAMPLE SIZE: Thirty-six adults were recruited for the trial, and randomly assigned to experimental or non-experimental groups of 17 and 19 participants respectively. SUBJECTS: Adults with chronic biomechanical neck pain who were recruited from the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC) Walk-in Clinic. OUTCOME MEASURES: Subjective findings were assessed using a mail-in self-report daily pain diary, and the CMCC Neck Disability Index (NDI). STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Using repeated measure analysis of variance weekly NDI scores, average weekly AM and PM pain scores between the experimental and non-experimental groups were compared throughout the study. RESULTS: The experimental group had statistically significant lower NDI scores (p < 0.05) than the non-experimental group. The average weekly AM scores were lower and statistically significant (p < 0.05) in the experimental group. The PM scores in the experimental group were lower but not statistically significant than the other group. CONCLUSIONS: The study results show that compared to conventional pillows, this experimental semi-customized cervical pillow was effective in reducing low-level neck pain intensity, especially in the morning following its use in a 4 week long study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".