Consistency of Cutaneous Thermal Scanning Measures Using Prone and Standing Protocols: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this pilot study was to measure paraspinal cutaneous temperature (PCT) in the prone vs standing position. METHODS: Ten symptom-free participants were evaluated. Paraspinal cutaneous temperature was recorded. Subjects were acclimated to the treatment room in a prone position for 8 minutes before the PCT was measured. After the prone PCT reading, patients stood. A standing PCT measurement was then taken. RESULTS: Paraspinal cutaneous temperature was marginally warmer when subjects were standing vs prone (PCT difference, 0.25 degrees C +/- 0.64 degrees C and 0.62 degrees C +/- 0.67 degrees C for left and right sides, respectively). The right and left side differential was the same in the prone and standing positions. There was a positive Pearson correlation (0.802-0.803; P < .000) between the standing and prone positions for both left and right sides. CONCLUSION: There are no differences between the prone or standing PCT measures if symptom-free subjects are given 8 minutes to acclimate before recording PCT measures.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".