MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799406918 · doi:10.14740/jmc.v9i5.3051

Cervical Radiculopathy Alleviating by Manipulative Correction of Cervical Hypolordosis

2018· article· en· W2799406918 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eric Chun‐Pu Chu, Taebum Lim, Kin-Cheung Mak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Cases · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Nerve Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChiropracticNeck painWeaknessCervical radiculopathySurgeryCervical NervePhysical therapyNerve rootCervical spineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this report is to present an interesting case of cervical radiculopathy in a patient with a prominent cervical hypolordosis treated by chiropractic adjustment. A 55-year-old office worker with severe neck pain and numbness of the right arm sought chiropractic treatment. Following 12 sessions of cervical adjustment, the patient experienced complete alleviation from radiculopathy and full restoration of cervical curvature. Neck pain is common and the cause is usually multifactorial. About 88% of uncomplicated neck pain is self-limiting. Conservative treatment is advocated as initial modality for most patients. Cervical radiculopathy, however, is a potential problem because nerve impingement can cause disability due to numbness or paresthesia, and even weakness, requiring surgical intervention. The best chance for sensorimotor recovery is with prompt intervention to decompress the pinched nerve. Instead of watchful waiting, early application of chiropractic adjustment may help release nerve impingement, and avoid medications and operations in patients with neglected nerve compression. J Med Cases. 2018;9(5):139-141 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jmc3051w

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical CasesSame topicPeripheral Nerve DisordersFrench-language works237,207