MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799865984 · doi:10.1589/jpts.30.730

Alleviation of posttraumatic dizziness by restoration of the cervical lordosis: a CBP<sup>®</sup> case study with a one year follow-up

2018· article· en· W2799865984 on OpenAlexaff
Miles O. Fortner, Paul A. Oakley, Deed E. Harrison

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physical Therapy Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsCanadian Rheumatology Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWhiplashNeck painLordosisCervical spineSpinal manipulationPhysical therapyOrthopedic surgeryChiropracticSurgeryPoison controlRadiography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[Purpose] To present the successful treatment of posttraumatic dizziness and neck pains that were initiated in a patient following a whiplash event. [Subject and Methods] A 46 year old male suffered a whiplash event that initiated neck pain and dizziness symptoms. The patient had many positive orthopedic findings and demonstrated a forward head posture and cervical hypolordosis. The patient was treated by Chiropractic BioPhysics® technique including cervical extension traction, extension exercises and spinal manipulative therapy initially three times a week for 16-weeks, and once a month thereafter. [Results] The patient had a resolution of daily dizziness and neck pain with a concomitant reduction of forward head translation and increase in cervical lordosis. The postural measures were further improved after one year of mostly home-care. [Conclusion] The cervical spine alignment may be an important biomarker for those with dizziness. The correction of cervical lordosis may be an essential requirement for superior clinical outcomes for those with posttraumatic dizziness.

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
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physical Therapy ScienceSame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207