Morphometric differences of cavitating Z joints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A previous study of 40 subjects undergoing spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) assessed cavitation measured by accelerometry and L3/L4 – L5/S1 zygapophysial (Z) joint space separation (gapping) measured from MRI scans. An unexpected (and previously unreported) finding was that 6 joints cavitated multiple times. Methods We performed an IRB‐approved comparative study (n=18) assessing morphometric analysis of multiple‐cavitating (MC), single‐cavitating (SC), and non‐cavitating (NC) Z joints (joints matched for segmental level, side, and gender). The medial, central, and lateral aspects of the Z joint spaces were measured from pre‐SMT MRI scans. Group comparisons using the Kruskal‐Wallis Test were made for the measurements from the 3 locations and the total of the 3 measurements (total measurement = TM, the primary outcome). Results TM and medial joint space were smaller/narrower for the MC group (TM, p=0.008; medial, p=0.04). No differences were found for the central and lateral joint spaces (central, p=0.18; lateral, p=0.29). Conclusions Multiple cavitations during SMT may be related to the “close packed” nature of a joint in the neutral position (particularly the medial aspect of the joint). These findings provide information about the characteristics of Z joints cavitating during SMT. Funding: NIH/NCCAM Grant # 3R01AT000123‐06S2.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".