MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3097861435 · doi:10.1007/s00586-020-06648-5

Advanced practice physiotherapy for adults with spinal pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3097861435 on OpenAlexafffund
Simon Lafrance, Jean-Gabriel Lapalme, Marianne Méquignon, Carlo Santaguida, Julio Fernandes, François Desmeules

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Spine Journal · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalMcGill University Health CentreUniversité de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFondation de l’Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
KeywordsMedicineNeurosurgeryPhysical therapyMeta-analysisMEDLINEPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.555
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.374 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations34
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Spine JournalSame topicNursing Roles and PracticesFrench-language works237,207