MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978139382 · doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2014.01.005

Presentation of an 85-Year-Old Woman With Musculoskeletal Pain to a Chiropractic Clinic: A Case of Ischemic Stroke

2014· article· en· W1978139382 on OpenAlexaff
Julia M. Liebich, Tari Reinke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chiropractic Medicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurosurgical Procedures and Complications
Canadian institutionsCanadian College of Naturopathic Medicine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChiropracticStroke (engine)Neurological examinationEmergency departmentPhysical examinationPast medical historyMedical historySurgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this case is to describe a patient who had a stroke preceding a chiropractic appointment and was unaware that the cerebrovascular event had occurred. CLINICAL FEATURES: An 85-year-old established patient presented for chiropractic treatment of pain in the left side of the neck, hip, and low back associated with known advanced degenerative spinal disease and lumbar stenosis. On the day of presentation, the patient reported morning nausea, double vision, and right-sided vision loss; she related that she had collided into a car while driving to the appointment. Review of her medical history divulged residual neurological deficits related to a previous subdural hematoma, resulting in craniotomy. Examination revealed a right inferior quadrantanopia in the right eye and right nasal hemianopia in the left eye. Nystagmus was present in the left eye with saccadic intrusion on pursuit right to left. INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME: The patient was transported immediately to an emergency room,where diagnosis of an Acute infarct in the left cerebrum at the junction of the left occipital, parietal and temporal lobes in the watershed area was confirmed. CONCLUSION: Patients with signs and symptoms of stroke in progress may occasionally present for chiropractic care. It is imperative to complete a thorough history and examination prior to care.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chiropractic MedicineSame topicNeurosurgical Procedures and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207