MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295182203 · doi:10.3233/wor-210030

Utilization rates of Active Release Techniques® in the workplace: A descriptive study

2022· article· en· W4295182203 on OpenAlexaff
Jason Pajaczkowski

Bibliographic record

VenueWork · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsCanadian Memorial Chiropractic College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDescriptive statisticsMedicineTotal costWork (physics)Operations managementOccupational safety and healthWorkers' compensationEnvironmental healthBusinessMedical emergencyCompensation (psychology)PsychologyStatisticsEngineeringAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Workplace safety is a necessary and frequent topic of discussion for researchers, employers, and workers. It is estimated that annual losses caused by work-related injuries cost the United States $140 to $145 billion. Specifically, work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSD) have risen from just over 10% to 50% of the total claims from 1952 to 1996, accounting for more than 345,00 days lost and more than $57 million in WSIB costs in 2015. Novel approaches to managing WMSDs, such as Active Release Techniques®, need to be explored to ensure the ongoing health of workers. OBJECTIVE: This descriptive study provides the details of the 697,002 onsite treatments across 448 sites in North America between 2014-2018 provided by Active Release Techniques® Corporate Solutions (ARTCS) practitioners. The objective was to calculate the total number of treatments, cost per closed case, percent improvement, and the number of cases referred to worker's compensation. METHODS: All charting was done on the ARTCS EMR portal. The lead author was given a spreadsheet of the results sanitized of all identifying data in order to perform the aforementioned calculations. RESULTS: From 2014 to 2018, ARTCS providers opened 199,077 new cases, with an average cost to the employer of $306.69 USD per case and an average percent improvement in pain (VNPS) of 87.2%. The most frequently treated areas were the shoulder (32,574 cases), hip (6,633 cases), and low back (27,873 cases), respectively. A total of 48,946 cases were work-related pain/discomfort, of which 1,110 (2.27%) went on to worker's compensation. CONCLUSION: ARTCS in the workplace has shown a positive trend in terms of reducing pain intensity. The cost was low as compared to worker's compensation claims, as was the rate of cases (2.27%) referred to worker's compensation. Additional studies, including prospective data collection and a control group, are warranted to substantiate this.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorkSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207