Patient Characteristics and Clinical Outcomes Associated With Conservative Treatment for Spine Pain in Women Experiencing Socioeconomic Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe patient demographics and pain changes for women over the course of care in a chiropractic program. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of a prospective quality assurance database from the Mount Carmel Clinic (MCC) in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Pain scores were reported on an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale. Baseline and discharge Numeric Rating Scale scores were compared for each spinal and extremity region through Wilcoxon signed rank tests to determine if clinically meaningful or statistically significant differences were present. RESULTS: , SD = 7.89) referred to the MCC chiropractic program by their primary care physician (65.2%) for an average of 15.6 (SD = 18.49) treatments. Clinically meaningful median baseline to discharge changes in pain by spine region were observed (Cervical = -2, Thoracic = -2, Lumbar = -3, Sacroiliac = -3), each of which yielded statistical significance (P < .001). CONCLUSION: This retrospective analysis found that the MCC chiropractic program serves middle-aged women with obesity experiencing socioeconomic challenges. Pain reductions were reported, regardless of the region of complaint, temporally associated with a course of chiropractic care.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".