Unsubstantiated claims in patient brochures from the largest state, provincial, and national chiropractic associations and research agencies
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the presence or absence of claims for the clinical art of chiropractic that are not currently justified by available scientific evidence or are intrinsically untestable. DESIGN: A survey of patient education and promotional material produced by national, state, and provincial societies and research agencies in Canada and the United States. METHOD: Patient brochures were solicited from the 3 largest provincial, 3 largest state, and the 3 largest national professional associations in the United States and Canada. Similar requests were made of 2 research agencies supported by the national associations. Brochures were reviewed for the presence or absence of unsubstantiated claims. RESULTS: Of the 11 organizations sampled, 9 distribute patient brochures. Of these 9 organizations, all distribute patient brochures that make claims for chiropractic services that have not been scientifically validated. CONCLUSION: The largest professional associations in the United States and Canada distribute patient brochures that make claims for the clinical art of chiropractic that are not currently justified by available scientific evidence or that are intrinsically untestable. These assertions are self-defeating because they reinforce an image of the chiropractic profession as functioning outside the boundaries of scientific behavior.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it