This Issue’s Trigger Points Call for Discussion: Hypertonicity of the Quadratus Lumborum Muscle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As noted in the introduction to the “Trigger Points” column in the June issue of the IJTMB (http://www.ijtmb.org/index.php/ijtmb/article/view/247), the Practice and Education Section Editors put out a call for discussion on the treatment of and education about a topical subject in therapeutic massage and bodywork.(1) The current topic is Hypertonicity of the Quadratus Lumborum. Is this something you treat regularly? Struggle with? Teach treatment about? Share your knowledge and discuss the issues! If you have something to say on the topic, please submit it—as appropriate—either to Practice (Dr. Niki Munk at ude.ui@kmumn) or Education (Whitney Lowe at moc.liamg@79ewolw) by the end of December 2014. Submitted briefs for IJTMB’s “Trigger Points” should be no longer than 300 words and include concise, yet detailed, information about how and why you use particular approaches and techniques when addressing the topic in either your practice or educational setting(s). Submissions should address primary components that would be expected in order to understand and apply the knowledge. For example, descriptions of the primary treatment factors and contextual factors, such as any population-specific details, primary indications, and key contraindications (as appropriate), should be included. Contextual factors include the intention for the treatment(s) described and any necessary training information, such as for special training or therapeutic approach. Also relevant to your submission would be if there is a particular history to the approach, or if it is based in previous research (references would be appropriate, and would not count toward the word limit). Respondents should also include a brief description of either their practice or education environment. For example, an introductory sentence or two may look something like this: I am a self-taught massage therapist with 25-years of experience working with babies, children, and young mothers in a private, solo massage practice. I have taken continuing education courses through the Upledger Institute for Cranio-Sacral therapy and lymphatic drainage and with the Barns Institute for myofascial treatment approaches. The IJTMB Practice and Educator Editors will review the submitted briefs, draft a submission synopses that will include exemplars, and work together to provide commentary on the relevance or application of the synopses within practice, education, and possibly research. Based on expertise, a guest editor may be selected from the submissions to assist in the synopsis and commentary development, and a brief biography about the editor would be included in the edition. Feedback about IJTMB “Trigger Points” is also welcome, as are suggestions for future topics. We look forward to learning from you.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.035 |
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".