Standardization of Spinal Manipulation Therapy in Humans: Development of a Novel Device Designed to Measure Dose-Response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this report is to present an innovative research tool that will provide the opportunity to study fundamental aspects of the spinal manipulation dose-physiological response relation in humans. METHODS: A servo-controlled linear actuator motor was developed to simulate spinal manipulative therapy. Coefficient of multiple correlations was calculated to assess the degree of similarity between each measured force curves, whereas precision was obtained by comparing resulting peak force and time-to-peak force to the target curves. RESULTS: The coefficient of multiple correlations calculations showed that repeatability was very high with all correlation values over 0.98. Precision was also very high with average differences in peak force and time-to-peak force of less than 3 N and less than 5 milliseconds. CONCLUSION: The tool was designed to optimize precision, repeatability, and safety in the delivery of force to the spine in humans. It offers a unique opportunity to study dose-response relationship for several spinal manipulation parameters such as peak force, time-to-peak force, and preload.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".