A narrative review of the published chiropractic literature regarding older patients from 2001-2010.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this article was to perform a narrative review of the chiropractic literature regarding older patients between 2001 and 2010. METHODS: A three step search strategy of the literature involved electronic searching, hand searching and reference tracking. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty eight articles germane to chiropractic geriatric practice and education were retrieved. DISCUSSION: Compared to the review of the literature conducted prior to 2000, the number of references on chiropractic geriatric education increased from 3 to 11, the number of demographic studies increased from 9 to 18, the number of case reports increased from 25 to 83, the number of clinical trials increased from 4 to 21 (only two RCTs found) and the number of references on clinical guidelines and general clinical information increased from 18 to 55. CONCLUSION: This review found 188 retrievable articles available to practitioners to effectively care plan for their older patients, a better than three fold increase in the number of references found during a similar review conducted at the end of the previous decade. However, there is clearly a gap in the evidence base of chiropractic geriatric care, particularly the under-representation of clinical trials of all kinds involving older chiropractic patients.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".