The 2005 Conference on the Biology of Manual Therapies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A historic and critically important scientific workshop for all professions involved with manual therapies was held at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on June 9 and 10, 2005. The conference was jointly sponsored and organized by the NIH and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and was the first ever national or international research conference to focus on the biologic mechanisms that underlie a broad range of interventions, which can be described as "manual therapies." Leading scientific experts from North America and Europe presented their latest findings and theories related to 5 different areas of science relevant to manual therapies: neuroscience, biomechanics, endocrinology, imaging, and immunology. During the conference, breakout groups composed of scientists, physicians and therapists, and patient advocates were formed in the relevant disciplines. These groups developed consensus statements on key unanswered research questions, which were then submitted back to the conference for comment and approval. The outcomes of this workshop have subsequently been incorporated into a new initiative by the NIH and Canadian Institutes of Health Research for funding research on the biology of manual therapies. This editorial includes presentation summaries and 13 key consensus recommendations relating to mechanisms of action for manual therapies.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".