Effect of Cervical Spine Manipulation on a Pre-Existing Vascular Lesion within the Canine Vertebral Artery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Serious adverse events such as cervical artery dissection (CAD) have been reported to occur following cervical spine manipulation therapy (cSMT). To investigate the relation between these events, we utilized an animal model to determine if vertebral arteries with a suspected susceptibility factor (wall lesion) could be injured further by cSMT. METHODS: Lesions to the vertebral artery wall were created by angioplasty in 10 anesthetized canines. Resulting injury dimensions were quantified using intravascular ultrasound before and after cSMT. Student's t were performed to assess the significance of changes in arterial dimension. RESULTS: Statistical analysis demonstrated that the pre-cSMT and post-cSMT lesions did not differ significantly in their length, area or volume (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this animal model, cSMT did not alter the dimensions of pre-existing vertebral artery lesions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".