MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3090247879

Presumptive spondylogenic pruritus: a case study.

2020· article· en· W3090247879 on OpenAlexaff
Leonard J. Faye, Brian Budgell

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsCanadian Memorial Chiropractic College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChiropracticMedicineComplaintGynecologySpinal manipulationPhysical therapyCervical spineSurgeryPhysical examinationPathologyAlternative medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To describe a case of a patient with chronic pruritus of the upper back and arms who underwent complete resolution of his complaint following a short course of chiropractic care. CASE PRESENTATION: A 36-year-old male suffering with chronic, severe pruritus affecting the upper back and both arms, presented for chiropractic treatment after pharmacological treatment and dietary restrictions failed to resolve his complaint. Physical examination revealed restrictions of thoracic and cervical intervertebral motion. However, radiological examination did not identify any substantial pathology of the spine. Following a short course of chiropractic treatment, which included spinal manipulation and home exercises, his complaint of pruritus resolved completely. SUMMARY: In this case, a severe and chronic complaint of pruritus which was refractory to other forms of care resolved quickly after the institution of chiropractic care. It is therefore hypothesized that the patient's pruritus was etiologically linked to biomechanical problems of the spine.

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)0.006
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0050.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicDermatology and Skin Diseases→French-language works237,207→