Utilization of Chiropractic Services among Older Adults with Spine Pain at a Publicly Funded Canadian Healthcare Facility: A Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are limited data on chiropractic care for older adults, specifically from medically underserved communities. This study describes the characteristics, clinical management, and patient-reported outcomes of older adults with spinal pain who present for chiropractic care at a publicly funded community health centre serving marginalized populations. This retrospective analysis utilized quality assurance data from chiropractic encounters at Mount Carmel Clinic between January 2011 and June 2020 of adults aged 45 and older. Descriptive statistics summarized the study population and their self-reported pain severity scores. Student's t-tests and repeated-measures ANOVA explored relationships between pain outcomes, age, and clinical characteristics. The sample included 240 middle-aged (45-59 years) and older adults (≥60 years) who recorded baseline and discharge pain scores following chiropractic treatment. Over half of middle-aged participants self-identified as Indigenous or as people with disabilities. Statistically and clinically important improvements in pain were noted across spinal regions and extremities for both cohorts.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".