Validity Study for the Cervical Range of Motion Device Used for Lateral Flexion in Patients With Neck Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A set of measurements was compared with an accepted gold standard using a methodologic design. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the criterion validity of the cervical range of motion device used for lateral flexion in patients with neck pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Reliability of the cervical range of motion device has been well established. At this writing, only validity for flexion and extension of the cervical spine has been investigated with this device. METHODS: The sample consisted of 24 volunteer subjects who had previously received physiotherapy for neck pain. In the radiograph department, subjects were stabilized on a chair. A first reading on the cervical range of motion device and a radiograph were taken in a neutral starting position. The subject then was asked to perform a maximal right lateral flexion, which was followed by a reading of the device and a second radiograph. The same procedures were followed for left lateral flexion. RESULTS: The cervical range of motion device demonstrated a very good linear relation with the radiograph measurements: left lateral flexion (r = 0.82,; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.92), right lateral flexion (r = 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.93). CONCLUSIONS: The cervical range of motion device showed very good validity for measurement of lateral flexion in this population of patients with neck pain. Because the reliability of the cervical range of motion device was established previously, the results of this study suggest that the device be used as an outcome measure for the cervical flexion, and for flexion and extension.
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 | 0.026 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".