An investigation into the production of intra-articular gas bubbles and increase in joint space in the zygapophyseal joints of the cervical spine in asymptomatic subjects after spinal manipulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To analyze the size and density of cervical zygapophyseal joint spaces in asymptomatic subjects using computed tomography (CT) and plain film radiography. The joint spaces were analyzed before manipulation without traction, before manipulation with manual traction, after manipulation without traction, and after manipulation with manual traction. The data obtained before the manipulation were compared with data obtained after the manipulation to determine if significant alterations occurred. DESIGN: Twenty-two asymptomatic subjects were placed into 1 or more of 6 possible experimental groups. In all experimental groups, except for experiment 1, the subjects underwent: (step 1) a premanipulation radiograph and/or CT scan, (step 2) a premanipulation plus traction radiograph and/or CT scan, (step 3) a postmanipulation radiograph and/or CT scan, and (step 4) a postmanipulation plus traction radiograph and/or CT scan. RESULTS: Except for experiment 2, there was no significant change in the width, area, and density values of the zygapophyseal joint spaces immediately after the manipulation in either the traction or traction-free positions of the neck, and no visible radiolucent cavities were demonstrated in any view. CONCLUSION: No evidence of gas in the joint space or obvious increase in zygapophyseal joint space width immediately after the manipulation was found. This was evident in both the traction and traction-free postmanipulation scans and plain film images. This is not consistent with the current understanding of cavitation in joints, in particular, the refractory period.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".