Response to “Osteopathic manipulative techniques in the treatment of vestibular dizziness not related to the cervical spine”
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We read with interest the letter by Álvarez et al. [1], and we thank and appreciate them for the supportive feedback.Their feedback and comments were very cogent and insightful.However, there were a few issues on which we would like to share our thoughts.Regarding the consensus on the definition of cervicogenic dizziness, we found inconsistent definitions within the reviewed articles.All studies that specifically defined cervicogenic dizziness as a form of vertigo caused by vascular impingement within the cervical spine were excluded from the study.We stated this in our published protocol as an exclusion criterion [2].Consistent with our inclusion of neuro-otological disorders, studies that defined cervicogenic dizziness as an impaired or altered interaction between cervical proprioceptive input and vestibular function met our inclusion criteria.In our published protocol [2], we stated that we would perform sensitivity analysis specific to the neurootological condition, provided that the intervention is reported in two or more studies.We did not have enough studies to perform sensitivity analysis based on the specific condition type and OMT.In our review, we critically appraised the published literature that explored the effectiveness of OMT in various neuro-otological disorders and reported them narratively, because we could not do
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it