Postural Control in People with Osteoarthritis of the Cervical Spine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examines whether there is a relationship between clinical correlates of osteoarthritic changes of the cervical spine and changes in postural stability. METHODS: This was a control group study with repeated measures. Twenty-three patients were recruited from the chiropractic University Clinic to participate in this study. The presence and severity of osteoarthritic changes of the cervical spine were determined radiologically. Balance control was evaluated by testing subjects' postural stability on a force platform with and without vision. A general clinical assessment of the neuromusculoskeletal system was performed to screen for any physical condition that could affect postural stability. Participants' characteristics were compared between each group using a 1-way analysis of variance for independent samples, and postural stability variables were submitted to a 2-way repeated measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: Subjects with signs of osteoarthritis of the cervical spine showed an increased range of sway, a faster sway speed, and a greater excursion than control subjects. They also showed a larger degree of lower limb neuropathy than control subjects. CONCLUSION: The postural instability shown by the osteoarthritic group may be due to the effects of the lower limb peripheral neuropathy alone or due to a combination of both cervical degenerative changes and peripheral changes. Further research is needed to clearly isolate the effects of the degeneration of the cervical spine on postural control.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".