Chiropractic manipulation and stroke: a population-based case-control study. Stroke 2001;32:1054–60
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose—Several reports have linked chiropractic manipulation of the neck to dissection or occlusion of the vertebral artery. However, previous studies linking such strokes to neck manipulation consist primarily of uncontrolled case series. We designed a population-based nested case-control study to test the association. Methods—Hospitalization records were used to identify vertebrobasilar accidents (VBAs) in Ontario, Canada, during 1993–1998. Each of 582 cases was age and sex matched to 4 controls from the Ontario population with no history of stroke at the event date. Public health insurance billing records were used to document use of chiropractic services before the event date. Results—Results for those aged,45 years showed VBA cases to be 5 times more likely than controls to have visited a chiropractor within 1 week of the VBA (95 % CI from bootstrapping, 1.32 to 43.87). Additionally, in the younger age group, cases were 5 times as likely to have had $3 visits with a cervical diagnosis in the month before the case’s VBA date (95 % CI from bootstrapping, 1.34 to 18.57). No significant associations were found for those aged $45 years. Conclusions—While our analysis is consistent with a positive association in young adults, potential sources of bias are also discussed. The rarity of VBAs makes this association difficult to study despite high volumes of chiropractic treatment. Because of the popularity of spinal manipulation, high-quality research on both its risks and benefits is recommended. (Stroke. 2001;32:1054-1060.)
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".