MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416444203 · doi:10.1016/j.aimed.2025.100590

Profile of patients presenting to Australian osteopaths: Results from a national health service use survey

2025· article· en· W4416444203 on OpenAlexaff
Brett Vaughan, Michael Fleischmann, Niklas Sinderholm Sposato, Jerry Draper‐Rodi, Kesava Kovanur Sampath, Loïc Treffel, Cindy McIntyre, Chantal Morin, Lee Muddle, Oliver P. Thomson

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Integrative Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersUniversity of Technology Sydney
KeywordsRespondentHealth careQuality of life (healthcare)Health servicesHealth professionalsService (business)Healthcare service

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Musculoskeletal conditions are one of the most common complaints affecting the Australian population. Affected individuals often seek care from a range of health professionals including osteopaths. Osteopaths provide care for musculoskeletal conditions using manual therapy, exercise, and patient education. The current study is a secondary analysis of data from an Australian health service use survey. Respondents were asked to indicate the range of health professionals they consulted during the period February 2021 and February 2022. Additional data collected from respondents related to demographic variables, presence of chronic conditions in addition to the Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI) and Short Form 20 (SF-20). Data were descriptively analysed based on whether the respondent reported consulting with an osteopath or not. In the period February 2021-February 2022, of the 2354 respondents, 143 (6.1%) indicated they had consulted with an osteopath. Over half of those who consulted with an osteopath identified as female (51.7%), had private health insurance (59.4%) and/or a healthcare card (69.9%). No significant difference was observed between respondents who consulted with an osteopath and those who did not for PWI scores (p>0.05). SF-20 scores were significantly lower for those who consulted with an osteopath compared with those who did not (p<0.01). This secondary analysis contributes to our understanding of the profile of patients presenting to Australian osteopaths, particularly health related quality of life and subjective wellbeing of this patient cohort.

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)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.355 · 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.

Study designObservational
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 venueAdvances in Integrative MedicineSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207