Bibliographic record
Abstract
I thank the responder for his comments1 on our article.2 I believe this commentary helps to highlight a key point made in the article and perhaps challenges the editorial process associated with PTJ. I regret that Tygiel feels this article will have little clinical benefit to others. It represents a culmination of a tremendous amount of work, and obviously we believe that it makes an important contribution to the physical therapy profession. It supports a change in practice, which is to reduce the use of short treatments of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound that deliver extremely low amounts of ultrasound energy. In addition to changing clinical practice, we must change how clinical trials are conducted and what is considered when conducting systematic reviews. If readers read the full text of our article, they will see that we agree with Tygiel's point that current research is not helping us determine whether ultrasound will aid the treatment of people with shoulder disorders. In particular, the amount of energy delivered in the treatment arm of clinical trials must be “adequate” if we are to evaluate the effectiveness of any physical therapy intervention. With the popularity of systematic reviews and meta-analyses used to evaluate clinical treatments, the appropriateness of treatment parameters (not just methodological quality) must be considered when drawing conclusions about the treatment outcomes. Although the title may not have been best, I do believe the conclusions in the abstract and the results and discussion sections of the article accurately reflect the current literature. Unfortunately, there is not enough evidence to support a suggestion that higher doses of ultrasound are effective in treating people with shoulder disorders. My hope is that third-party payers will venture beyond the title and at least read the conclusion section of the abstract. The title used in this article was not one submitted by the authors of this article and was not considered by the manuscript reviewers. It was in the final stages of editorial production that the title was changed to the current version so that it would be consistent with PTJ's move to promote the use of active, more informative article titles. In fact, a revised title suggested by the editor in chief was “There is not strong evidence to support the use of therapeutic ultrasound for soft tissue shoulder pathology: a systematic review.” I suspect this title would have fueled to an even greater extent the valid concerns raised about the negative impact on the evidence-based practice movement. Perhaps this discussion will stimulate a review of this editorial practice of PTJ.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".