OA04.03. Neural responses to the mechanical characteristics of a spinal manipulation: effect of varying direction of the applied thrust force
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In anesthetized cat preparations (n=18), a simulated spinal manipulation (100ms thrust duration) was delivered in each of 5 directions [posterior-to-anterior (0°), cranialward (15° & 30°), and medialward (15° & 30°)] to the prone, intact lower lumbar spine (L 6 -S 1 )using the L 6 lamina as the contact site. Importantly, we increased thrust force as we deviated thrust direction from vertical in order to keep the force component that was perpendicularly-oriented to the contact site constant at 21.3N (55% of an average cat’s body weight of 3.95kg). During the manipulative thrust, electrophysiological recordings from individual muscle spindle afferents innervating the L 6 multifidus and longissimus muscles were obtained from L 6 dorsal rootlets exposed through an L 5 laminectomy. Muscle spindle discharge frequency during P-A-0° thrust increased 81.6 (89.1, 98.0; 95% CI), during cranialward-15° increased 101.4 (93.1, 109.6), during cranialward-30° increased 82.8 (90.3, 96.6), during medialward-15° increased 104.6 (93.4, 115.8), and during medialward-30° increased 87.6 (69.8, 105.5) impulses/sec. Our results suggest that for the same vertically-oriented force component, thrust direction had little effect on muscle spindle responses. These data provide neurophysiological evidence that only the component of the manipulative thrust normally-oriented to the contact site is transmitted to deeper tissues.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".