The Refractory Period of the Audible “Crack” After Lumbar Manipulation: A Preliminary Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates if side posture lumbar manipulation is associated with a refractory period of the audible "crack" and if so, to quantify this refractory period across subjects. METHODS: Three subjects were exposed to multiple "baseline" side posture manipulations until no further audible cracks were recorded. "Test-refractory period" manipulations were administered after a set time (ie, potential refractory period) at which point the number of audible cracks was recorded. The refractory period was declared when a minimum of 50% of the baseline audible "cracks" had recovered during the test manipulations. The study design included 2 clinicians who performed side posture lumbar manipulation on asymptomatic subjects ranging from 38 to 49 years of age. RESULTS: The refractory period was 40 minutes for subject A, 70 minutes for subject B, and 95 minutes for subject C. The average refractory period across subjects was 68.33 minutes. The audible "crack" recovery was maintained for the remaining test days once the refractory period had been met. CONCLUSIONS: The audible "crack" heard during side posture lumbar manipulation is believed to originate from the zygapophyseal joints. This is supported by the presence of a refractory period and by the number of audible "cracks" found per 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".