MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206530563 · doi:10.1186/s12998-021-00380-7

Response to Lawrence DJ: 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

2021· review· en· W4206530563 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre Côté, Jan Hartvigsen, Iben Axén, Charlotte Leboeuf‐Yde, Melissa Corso, Heather M. Shearer, Jessica C. Wong, Andrée-Anne Marchand, J. David Cassidy, Simon French, Gregory N. Kawchuk, Silvano Mior, Erik Poulsen, John Srbely, Carlo Ammendolia, Marc‐André Blanchette, Jason W. Busse, André Bussières, Carol Cancelliere, Henrik Wulff Christensen, Diana De Carvalho, Katie de Luca, Alister du Rose, Andreas Eklund, Roger Engel, Guillaume Goncalves, Jeffrey J. Hébert, Cesar A. Hincapié, Maria Hondras, Amanda Kimpton, Henrik Hein Lauridsen, Stanley Innes, Anne-Laure Meyer, David Newell, Søren O’Neill, Isabelle Pagé, Steven Passmore, Stephen M. Perle, Jeffrey Quon, Mana Rezai, Maja Stupar, Michael Swain, Andrew Vitiello, Kenneth A. Weber, Kenneth J. Young, Hainan Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueChiropractic & Manual Therapies · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of New BrunswickMemorial University of NewfoundlandMcGill UniversityMcMaster UniversityMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of AlbertaOntario Tech UniversityUniversity of GuelphPublic Health OntarioCentre for Disability Prevention and RehabilitationImpactCanadian Memorial Chiropractic CollegeUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSummitManual therapyPhysical therapyRehabilitationAlternative medicineSpinal manipulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationChiropracticPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In summary, the statements made by Lawrence about our methodology are incorrect and ill informed. While we thank Lawrence for his interest in our work, his statements about our methodology are in our opinion misconstrued and hence not appropriate.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.194
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.194
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0290.029
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.005

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.360 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChiropractic & Manual TherapiesSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207