Comparison of force-time characteristics of prone cervicothoracic spinal manipulative therapy between chiropractic interns and chiropractors: A cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although the force-time characteristics of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) have been extensively studied, evidence on the maturation of SMT delivered to the cervicothoracic junction is scarce. The aim of this study is to compare the force-time characteristics of a cervicothoracic SMT technique between experienced chiropractors and chiropractic interns. . METHODS: Participants performed a total of 18 posterior-to-anterior cervicothoracic SMT on a human-shaped manikin, fixed to an instrumented treatment table. Participants were instructed to execute the technique, contacting either the right or the left side of the manikin, at 3 different levels of force: low, typical, and high. Three-level analysis of variance was used to assess the effect of group (experienced chiropractors or interns), force level, and contact side on force-time characteristics. Variability of these characteristics among participants was also evaluated. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed in any of the force-time characteristics between chiropractic interns (n = 15) and experienced chiropractors (n = 10), nor on the contact side used to perform the SMT (p > .05). Significant effects on force level were noted for all force-time characteristics (p < .05), except for impulse duration (p > .05). The interns displayed more variability than experienced chiropractors for the force at thrust initiation only (p = .02). . CONCLUSION: This study shows that both chiropractic interns and experienced clinicians deliver SMT to the cervicothoracic junction with similar force-time characteristics. However, final-year students exhibited greater variability in controlling their force just before initiating the thrust, indicating that some aspects of their motor skill may still be developing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".