Short-Term Effects of Manipulation to the Upper Thoracic Spine of Asymptomatic Subjects on Plasma Concentrations of Epinephrine and Norepinephrine—A Randomized and Controlled Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the short-term effects of spinal manipulation applied to a hypomobile segment of the upper thoracic spine (T1-T6), on plasma concentrations of norepinephrine (NE) and epinephrine (E) in asymptomatic subjects, under strictly controlled conditions. METHODS: Fifty-six asymptomatic subjects were randomly assigned to receive either a chiropractic manipulative intervention or a sham intervention in the upper thoracic spine. A 20-gauge catheter fitted with a saline lock was used to sample blood before, immediately after, and 15 minutes after intervention. Plasma NE and E concentrations were determined using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Changes in plasma catecholamine concentrations were analyzed within and between groups using 1- and 2-sample t tests, respectively. RESULTS: The plasma samples of 36 subjects (18 treatment, 18 control) were used in the analysis. Mean plasma concentrations of NE and E did not significantly differ between the 2 groups at any time point and did not change significantly after either the manipulative or sham intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that a manipulative thrust directed to a hypomobile segment in the upper thoracic spine of asymptomatic subjects does not have a measurable effect on the plasma concentrations of NE or E. These results provide a baseline measure of the sympathetic response to spinal manipulation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".