Frequency of use of diagnostic and manual therapeutic procedures of the spine currently taught at the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College: A preliminary survey of Ontario chiropractors. Part 2 - procedure usage rates.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine which diagnostic and therapeutic procedures of the spine are most commonly utilized by chiropractors practicing in Ontario, based on a list of currently taught procedures at CMCC. In Part 1 of this study (published previously), the demographics and practice patterns of the respondents were presented. Part 2 of this study (presented here) reports on the utilization rates of spinal diagnostic and therapeutic procedures by the respondents. METHODS: The study consisted of a paper-based survey that was sent to 500 randomly selected Ontario chiropractors who responded confidentially. Survey questions inquired into demographic and practice style characteristics as well as the frequency with which spinal diagnostic and therapeutic procedures were performed. RESULTS: There were 108 respondents to the survey, giving a response rate of 22.4%. Frequency of use of diagnostic procedures fell into three broad categories: (i) those tests that are almost always performed, (ii) those tests that are almost always performed by two-thirds to one-half of patients, and (iii) those tests that are virtually never used. By comparison, respondents utilized the same therapeutic procedures for patients care less consistently. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a low response rate, respondents reported mostly relying on static and motion palpation, joint play, neurological tests, and ranges of motion when assessing their patients. Due to a low response rate, the results of this study may not be generalizable to all Ontario chiropractors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".