MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1557718516

Two cases of work-related lateral epicondylopathy treated with Graston Technique® and conservative rehabilitation.

2012· article· en· W1557718516 on OpenAlexaff
John A Papa

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTendon Structure and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBell (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical therapyElbowRehabilitationMedicineConservative treatmentPhysical medicine and rehabilitationChiropracticWristConservative managementTennis elbowWork (physics)Rating scaleManual therapySurgeryPsychologyAlternative medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To chronicle the conservative treatment and management of two work-related cases of lateral elbow pain diagnosed as lateral epicondylopathy. CLINICAL FEATURES: PATIENT 1: A 48-year old female presented with gradual onset of right lateral elbow pain over the course of six weeks related to work activities of repetitive flexion/extension movements of the wrist and finger keying. PATIENT 2: A 47-year old female presented with gradual onset of left lateral elbow pain over the course of four weeks related to work activities of repetitive squeezing and gripping. INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME: The conservative treatment approach consisted of activity modification, bracing, medical acupuncture with electrical stimulation, Graston Technique®, and rehabilitative exercise prescription. Outcome measures included verbal pain rating scale (VPRS), QuickDASH Work Module Score (QDWMS), and a return to regular work activities. Both patients attained resolution of their complaints, and at eight month follow-up reported no recurrence of symptoms. CONCLUSION: A combination of conservative rehabilitation strategies may be used by chiropractors to treat work-related lateral epicondylopathy and allow for individuals to minimize lost time related to this condition.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 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

Citations22
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicTendon Structure and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207