MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977340632 · doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2005.08.003

Measurement of the Pressure Applied During Motion Palpation and Reliability for Cervical Spine Rotation

2005· article· en· W1977340632 on OpenAlexafffund
Justin Marcotte, Martin Normand, Pierre Black

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
KeywordsPalpationMedicineKinematicsCervical spineReliability (semiconductor)OrthodonticsFixation (population genetics)ReproducibilityRotation (mathematics)SurgeryArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To measure the pressure applied during motion palpation for cervical spine rotation and to verify its effect on reliability when the kinematics of the test are standardized. METHODS: The pressure of palpation used during the test of cervical spine rotation was measured by means of flexible and extra-fine pressure sensors linked to an electronic interface. Seven pressure measurements (left rotation from C1 to C7) for each of 24 examiners were taken. In addition, the examiners were asked to detect the presence of intervertebral fixation while palpating. RESULTS: Pressure of palpation varied from 4.0 to 41.0 N/cm2 among the examiners. Standardization of the kinematics of the test establishes a strong reliability of identifying a fixation (kappa varying from 0.701 to 0.748). CONCLUSIONS: The pressure applied during motion palpation for cervical spine rotation is light to moderate. It can vary tenfold (4-41 N/cm2) and remain reliable for identifying a fixation as long as the kinematics of the test are standardized.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.192
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations26
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Manipulative and Physiological TherapeuticsSame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207