A comparison of the initial and short term effects of cervical spine adjustments and acetylsalicylic acid in the treatment of mild to moderate episodic tension-type headache and its recurrence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Episodic tension-type headache is more prevalent than chronic tension-type headache (Schwartz, et al. 1998). The exact causes of episodic tension-type headaches are not known (Headache Classification Committee, 1988:30-31). Episodic tension-type headache and chronic tension-type headache have different characteristics. Thus the mechanism of episodic tension-type headache is still unclear, and should be studied separately from chronic tension-type headache (Kim, et al. 1995). Presently, studies conflict with regard to spinal manipulation and its efficacy in the treatment of episodic tension-type headache. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the relative effectiveness of 500mg of acetylsalicylic acid as opposed to cervical spine manipulation for the treatment of episodic tension-type headache. It was hypothesized that manipulation would provide a significantly greater immediate and short-term benefit in comparison to acetylsalicylic acid. This study was conducted as a clinical trial at the Technikon Natal Chiropractic Day Clinic. Sixty patients presenting with episodic tension-type headaches were selected and randomly allocated into two equal groups. Patient's were provided with one of the two treatments at the initial consultation, and again upon a second consultation after a minimum 'washout period' of forty-eight hours, but within two weeks. Patient's in Group 1 received cervical spine manipulation, whereas patients in Group 2 received 500mg of acetylsalicylic acid. The subjective responses of each patient were recorded by means of the Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire, the Numerical Pain Rating Scale, the CMCC Neck
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".