MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054409870 · doi:10.1067/mmt.2001.112566

Sources of variation in spinal indentation testing: Indentation site relocation, intraabdominal pressure, subject movement, muscular response, and stiffness estimation

2001· article· en· W2054409870 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory N. Kawchuk, O.R. Fauvel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsAlberta Bone and Joint Health InstituteUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIndentationStiffnessRelocationMovement (music)OrthodonticsStructural engineeringAcousticsComposite materialMaterials scienceEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Force-displacement properties of spinal tissues assessed by blunt indentation are thought to have clinical relevance; however, numerous variables with respect to spinal indentation have yet to be identified or characterized completely. OBJECTIVE: To identify and quantify, where possible, previously unidentified or incompletely characterized variables with respect to spinal indentation. DESIGN: Multiprotocol design. METHODS: Four experiments were performed: (1) Twelve asymptomatic subjects were indented with concurrent electromyography during conditions of rest, held inspiration, increased intraabdominal pressure and lumbar extension. (2) Changes in the recumbent position of 12 subjects were measured while a series of movements was performed in restrained and unrestrained conditions. (3) Ten clinicians attempted to locate, and to relocate, a subcutaneous anatomical landmark through visualization/palpation and ultrasonic imaging. (4) Performances of 3 methods of force-displacement curve modeling were compared with respect to stiffness estimation. RESULTS: (1) Spinal stiffness increased significantly in a minority of subjects awaiting indentation and in a majority of subjects during increases in intraabdominal pressure. (2) Changes in subject position were significantly reduced by a restraint system. (3) With respect to interclinician error in locating and relocating an indentation site, there was significant improvement with the use of ultrasonic visualization. (4) The error associated with linear techniques used to model curvilinear force-displacement data plots increased with increasing linear intervals. CONCLUSION: Several sources of variation in spinal indentation were identified: indentation site relocation, intraabdominal pressure, subject movement, muscular response, and stiffness estimation. These variables, which have been unaccounted for in previous indentation studies, might be responsible for the change or lack of change in force-displacement properties between preintervention and postintervention indentation trials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.222
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.159 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Manipulative and Physiological TherapeuticsSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207