Bibliographic record
Abstract
I read with interest the letters to the editor in response to the Goertz et al. literature review.1Goertz CM Hurwitz E Murphy B Coulter I. Extrapolating beyond the data in a systematic review of spinal manipulation for nonmusculoskeletal disorders: a fall from the summit.J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2021; 44: 271-279Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (18) Google Scholar I was struck by the content in the letters that provide a critical review of the Summit article,2Côté P Hartvigsen J Axen I et al.The global summit on the efficacy and effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy for the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature.Chiropr Man Therap. 2021; 29: 8Crossref PubMed Scopus (13) Google Scholar which was published in another journal, thereby limiting an academic debate as expected among scholars. The opinions and personal remarks made by the authors of the letters appear to question the scientific merit of the Summit suggesting that power dynamics influenced decisions,3Budgell B. Re: Goertz et al. Extrapolating beyond the data [epub ahead of print]. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2021.04.005. Published June 15, 2021Google Scholar suggest reframing the research question to assess multimodal care,4Hawk C. Comment on Goertz et al article [epub ahead of print]. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2021.04.008. Published June 05, 2021Google Scholar that real-world data should inform evidence and policy rather than randomized control trials,5Holt KR. Comment about extrapolating beyond the data [epub ahead of print]. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2021.04.002. Published June 05, 2021Google Scholar questioned the strategic use of “talented researchers”6Marchiori DM. Overextrapolation, missed opportunities, and ladders on the wrong walls [epub ahead of print]. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2021.04.009. Published June 05, 2021Google Scholar and their intentions,7Morgan WE. Agenda-driven summit [epub ahead of print]. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2021.04.012. Published June 05, 2021Google Scholar and the use of a methodology that would yield predetermined results.8Steiman I. Re: Goertz et al. Extrapolating beyond the data [epub ahead of print]. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmpt.2021.04.006. Published June 15, 2021Google Scholar These are serious remarks that speak to the methodology used by and the scientific integrity of the researchers. For the sake of academic debate, the authors of these letters should have appropriately directed their remarks to the journal wherein the Summit article was published, thereby providing the authors the opportunity to respond rather than be given an unfettered platform. What a missed opportunity to advance the debate. Extrapolating Beyond the Data in a Systematic Review of Spinal Manipulation for Nonmusculoskeletal Disorders: A Fall From the SummitJournal of Manipulative & Physiological TherapeuticsVol. 44Issue 4PreviewThe purpose of this article is to discuss a literature review—a recent systematic review of nonmusculoskeletal disorders—that demonstrates the potential for faulty conclusions and misguided policy implications, and to offer an alternate interpretation of the data using present models and criteria. Full-Text PDF
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 | 0.033 | 0.241 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.014 |
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".