MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415407040 · doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2025.09.025

Chiropractic Referral for Computed-Tomography Angiography to Rule Out Vertebral Artery Dissection: A Case Report

2025· article· en· W4415407040 on OpenAlexaff
Steven Brown, James J. Lehman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chiropractic Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and Complications
Canadian institutionsCanadian Chiropractic Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChiropracticVertebral arteryVertebral artery dissectionNeurosurgeryAngiographyReferralAneurysmCerebral angiographyArterial dissectionDifferential diagnosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: This paper describes a case of chiropractic referral to medical emergency services for computed-tomography angiography (CTA) imaging to rule out vertebral artery dissection (VAD). Clinical Features: A 50-year-old female presented to a chiropractic physician with an idiopathic onset of neck pain, headache, nausea, and dizziness. Differential diagnosis included VAD, internal carotid artery dissection (ICAD), as well as cerebral aneurysm or other intracranial abnormality. Due to symptoms of potential VAD, the patient was referred to medical emergency services for CTA imaging to rule out VAD. CTA revealed a possible posterior communicating artery (PCom) aneurysm vs. infundibulum, and left C3-C4 facet arthropathy. No VAD was noted. Intervention/Outcome: The patient was referred to a neurosurgeon who concluded the patient's abnormality was an incidental finding of infundibulum, not an aneurysm. The patient was referred to physical therapy for treatment of the C3-C4 facet arthropathy, which resolved her symptoms. Conclusion: This case report highlights the role of chiropractors in interdisciplinary care by referring suspected non-neuromusculoskeletal conditions to medical emergency services for advanced imaging to ensure patient safety.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.404
Threshold uncertainty score0.894

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chiropractic MedicineSame topicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207