Two cases of work-related lateral epicondylopathy treated with Graston Technique® and conservative rehabilitation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".