The efficacy of chiropractic adjustment in the treatment of primary metatarsalgia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this investigation was to investigate the relative efficacy of foot and ankle adjustments as opposed to placebo ultrasound, in terms of subjective and objective clinical findings, in the treatment of primary metatarsalgia. This was a randomised, controlled, clinical trial consisting of two groups. Group A received foot and ankle adjustments, while Group B received detuned ultrasound as the placebo treatment. Each group consisted of twenty subjects between the ages of 20 and 78 years, who were randomly assigned to their respective groups. It was hypothesised that foot and ankle adjustments would be effective in the treatment of primary metatarsalgia. Subjects diagnosed with primary metatarsalgia were included in the study. The treatment regime consisted of a course of eight treatments, with two treatments a week, spread over a four-week period. Subjective and objective measurements were taken at the initial, second, third and final consultations. Subjective data consisted of the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire, the Numerical Pain Rating Scale -101 and the Foot Function Index. Objective data was collected by means of Algometer measurements. Inter-group comparisons were made using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney unpaired U-test for the categorical variables and the parametric two-sample unpaired t-test for the continuous variables. Inter-group comparisons of the subjective readings showed that the two groups were similar at the beginning of the study, except in terms
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".