Adverse Events in the Manipulation of Pediatric Patients: Flaws in a Systematic Review: In Reply
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We appreciate the interest in our work. To date, we have received correspondence from the chiropractic community, suggesting that we overstated the data, and the medical community, suggesting that we understated them. The advantage of a systematic review is that it allows for a transparent approach to the subject area to minimize bias. We appreciate the careful review our work has received. In particular, 2 errors were identified with regards to material that was correctly cited in tables but incorrectly cited in text (eg, right text in wrong location). We have notified the journal editors so that these errors may be rectified. We would like to address some of the other …
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 | 0.104 | 0.541 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".