MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131412177 · doi:10.1016/s0161-4754(02)54112-9

Chiropractic care of a patient with vertebral subluxation and Bell’s palsy

2003· article· en· W2131412177 on OpenAlexaff
Joel Alcantara, Gregory Plaugher, Darwin L. Van Wyngarden

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Nerve Paralysis Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Chiropractic Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChiropracticSubluxationPalsyPhysical therapyNeck painBell's palsySpinal manipulationEtiologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To describe the chiropractic care of a patient medically diagnosed with Bell's palsy and discuss issues clinically relevant to this disorder, such as its epidemiology, etiology, diagnosis, care, and prognosis. CLINICAL FEATURES: A 49-year-old woman with a medical diagnosis of Bell's palsy sought chiropractic care. Her symptoms included right facial paralysis, extreme phonophobia, pain in the right temporomandibular joint (TMJ), and neck pain. Signs of cervical vertebral and TMJ subluxations included edema, tenderness, asymmetry of motion and posture, and malalignment detected from plain film radiographs. INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME: The patient was cared for with full spine contact-specific, high-velocity, low-amplitude adjustments (Gonstead Technique) to sites of vertebral and occipital subluxations. The patient's left TMJ was also adjusted. The initial symptomatic response to care was positive, and the patient made continued improvements during the 6 months of care. CONCLUSION: There are indications that patients suffering from Bell's palsy may benefit from a holistic chiropractic approach that not only includes a focus of examination and care of the primary regional areas of complaint (eg, face, TMJ) but also potentially from significant vertebral subluxation concomitants.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.285
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

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 head0.250
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.126 · 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

Citations8
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Manipulative and Physiological TherapeuticsSame topicFacial Nerve Paralysis Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207