MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Baxter’s The Foot and Ankle in Sport: 2nd edition, 2008

2009· article· en· W29484071 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
P Kissel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical and Biological Sciences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChiropracticManual therapyOsteopathyAlternative medicineConceptual frameworkSports medicineEngineering ethicsMedicinePsychologyPhysical therapyEpistemologyPathologyEngineeringPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is a comprehensive, much needed textbook. As evidence-based therapeutics now clearly provides the framework of our practices, we are constantly searching for better, clearer, and fully supported “evidence” to incorporate into our therapeutic protocols. This book is a superb integration of the body of knowledge from orthopaedics, rheumatology, pain control, physical medicine and rehabilitation, osteopathic medicine, psychology, physiotherapy, regretfully leaving out the now broad evidence-based chiropractic therapeutics. This is not necessarily a shortcoming of the book, just another fact-of-life, where the interdisciplinary iron curtain still surrounds chiropractic sciences. Where the strength of this book lies is drawing out the similarities and the effectiveness of dissimilar methods of evaluation and treatment methods of each discipline. Sometimes we just have to admit that the treatment advocated is only a conceptual framework and have to be weary of excessive enthusiasms for the belief system without supporting evidence. The book is cleverly divided into four (4) conceptual Parts: Part 1 is Introduction, while Part 2 deals with Morphology; Dysfunction and Pain; Part 3 then contains Regional Disorders and finally Part 4 Management Strategies. This text then is a comprehensive account, as the editors established in the preface, “of both structural and functional disorders of the spine, and of the extremities.” The theoretical framework of the book is the differentiation of “early pathomorphological changes (which) reflect adaptive process to biomechanical stresses” and is manifested in “reversible dysfunction states” and “advanced structural pathology (which are) consequences of the failure of adaptation of the soft tissues to postural and dynamic stresses.” The chapter titled Fundamentals incorporate concepts such as the Biosocial Model, Distinctiveness of Musculoskeletal Medicine, Models of Neuromusculoskeletal Medicine, Pragmatism and Complexity, The Value of Evidence-based Medicine and its Applicability to Manual/Musculoskeletal Medicine, Reproducibility and Validity of Diagnostic Procedures and RCTs in Manual/Musculoskeletal Medicine. This chapter then sets the tone and framework of what will follow in the next 47 chapters. Within the context of Physical Examination authored by Drs. Richard Ellis and Cyrus Cooper, both from the University Hospital of Southampton, UK, they refer to two systems used in musculoskeletal examination; selective tissue tension, originally developed by Cyriax, always used in chiropractic premanipulative manoeuvres, and functional examination. In selective tissue tension, as the authors describe “the examiner puts strain sequentially on the possible structures at fault: when the person’s pain is reproduced, the structure under test is identified as the likely cause.” In addition to identifying specific tissues at fault, the authors encourage “examining the whole person” with their specific sensitivities, over-reactivity and abnormal levels of anxiety associated with their condition. A neat pictorial review captures a clinical musculoskeletal examination incorporating Focus of Examination, a picture depicting the actual test procedure, a short description of the procedure, including patient instructions and typical findings and interpretation. This is a very comprehensive “table,” over 35 pages, a most valuable quick compendium. These could formulate a “standardized” musculoskeletal examination. In summary, this superb textbook is a must-read for anyone interested in diagnosis and management of musculoskeletal pain.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0410.027

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Chiropractic AssociationSame topicMedical and Biological SciencesFrench-language works237,207