Measurement of the Pressure Applied During Motion Palpation and Reliability for Cervical Spine Rotation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.013 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".