MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991768854 · doi:10.1016/s0161-4754(02)54106-3

Increasing the cervical lordosis with chiropractic biophysics seated combined extension-compression and transverse load cervical traction with cervical manipulation: nonrandomized clinical control trial

2003· article· en· W1991768854 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLordosisVisual analogue scaleRange of motionRadiographySurgeryCervical vertebraeOrthodonticsForaminotomyCervical spine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cervical lordosis has been shown to be an important outcome of care; however, few conservative methods of rehabilitating sagittal cervical alignment have been reported. OBJECTIVE: To study whether a seated, retracted, extended, and compressed position would cause tension in the anterior cervical ligament, anterior disk, and muscle structures, and thereby restore cervical lordosis or increase the curvature in patients with loss of the cervical lordosis. STUDY DESIGN: Nonrandomized, prospective, clinical control trial. METHODS: Thirty preselected patients, after diagnostic screening for tolerance to cervical extension with compression, were treated for the first 3 weeks of care using cervical manipulation and a new type of cervical extension-compression traction (vertical weight applied to the subject's forehead in the sitting position with a transverse load at the area of kyphosis). Pretreatment and posttreatment Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain ratings were compared along with pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cervical radiographs analyzed with the posterior tangent method for changes in alignment. Results are compared to a control group of 33 subjects receiving no treatment and matched for age, sex, weight, height, and pain. RESULTS: Control subjects reported no change in VAS pain ratings and had no statistical significant change in segmental or global cervical alignment on comparative lateral cervical radiographs (difference in all angle mean values < 1.3 degrees ) repeated an average of 8.5 months later. For the traction group, VAS ratings were 4.1 pretreatment and 1.1 posttreatment. On comparative lateral cervical radiographs repeated after an average of 38 visits over 14.6 weeks, 10 angles and 2 distances showed statistically significant improvements, including anterior head weight bearing (mean improvement of 11 mm), Cobb angle at C2-C7 (mean improvement of -13.6 degrees ), and the angle of intersection of the posterior tangents at C2-C7 (mean improvement of 17.9 degrees ). Twenty-one (70%) of the treatment group subjects were followed for an additional 14 months; improvements in cervical lordosis and anterior weight bearing were maintained. CONCLUSIONS: Chiropractic biophysics (CBP) technique's extension-compression 2-way cervical traction combined with spinal manipulation decreased chronic neck pain intensity and improved cervical lordosis in 38 visits over 14.6 weeks, as indicated by increases in segmental and global cervical alignment. Anterior head weight-bearing was reduced by 11 mm; Cobb angles averaged an increase of 13 degrees to 14 degrees; and the angle of intersection of posterior tangents on C2 and C7 averaged 17.9 degrees of improvement.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.696
Threshold uncertainty score0.733

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.228
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.139 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it