Changes in Manipulative Peak Force Modulation and Time to Peak Thrust among First-Year Chiropractic Students Following a 12-Week Detraining Period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to analyze differences in peak force modulation and time-to-peak thrust in posterior-to-anterior (PA) high-velocity-low-amplitude (HVLA) manipulations in first-year chiropractic students prior to and following a 12-week detraining period. METHODS: Chiropractic students (n=125) performed 2 thrusts prior to and following a 12-week detraining period: total peak force targets were 400 and 600 N, on a force-sensing table using a PA hand contact of the participant's choice (bilateral hypothenar, bilateral thenar, or cross bilateral). Force modulation was compared to defined target total peak force values of 600 and 400 N, and time-to-peak thrust was compared between data sets using 2-tailed paired t-tests. RESULTS: Total peak force for the 600 N intensity varied by 124.11 + 65.77 N during the pre-test and 123.29 + 61.43 N during the post-test compared to the defined target of 600 N (P = .90); total peak force for the 400 N intensity varied by 44.91 + 34.67 N during the pre-test and 44.60 + 32.63 N during the post-test compared to the defined target of 400 N (P = .57). Time-to-peak thrust for the 400 N total peak force was 137.094 + 42.47 milliseconds during the pre-test and 125.385 + 37.46 milliseconds during the post-test (P = .0004); time-to-peak thrust for the 600 N total peak force was 136.835 + 40.48 milliseconds during the pre-test and 125.385 + 33.78 milliseconds during the post-test (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate no drop-off in the ability to modulate force for either thrust intensity, but did indicate a statistically significant change in time-to-peak thrust for the 400 N total peak force thrust intensity in first-year chiropractic students following a 12-week detraining period.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".