The influence of manual therapy of cervical spine and temporomandibular joint on tinnitus.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions for cervicogenic and temporomandibular joints to reduce Tinnitus. Moreover, this systematic review will assess various physical therapy and optimal tinnitus management approaches. Methodology A systematic review of potential literature was performed following PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive electronic search across PubMed, CINAHL, Science Direct, Embase, Cochrane library, and Scopus from 1991 to October 2022. I assessed the standard mean difference of intervention within and between the studies. The quality assessment of randomized and non-randomized control trials is performed using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale respectively. Results Nine studies were included in this systematic review (1 cohort and 8 clinical trials). 470 patients were included overall. I used Visual analog scale (5 studies), Tinnitus handicap inventory (4 studies) and self-design questionnaires (3 studies) to describe the results. Different manual therapies were used to intervene and all of them showed statistically significant effect in improving subjective tinnitus in patients. Conclusion The results of this systematic review suggested a favorable role of manual therapy for the management of tinnitus. Prominent change in the pain...
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 | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".