Bibliographic record
Abstract
We are pleased to offer three distinct articles in this issue of the IJTMB covering education, sports therapy, and pain management in opioid-dependent patients. Bauer’s education article looks at a massage therapy program developed specifically to address the complexity of integrating massage into a multidisciplinary hospital setting. There are several features I find useful: the description of the organic growth of the use of massage within the facility, along with the barriers and facilitators; how massage therapists and massage therapy students were integrated as part of the development team and testing process; and the encouragement of the development of other similar, rigorous, hospital-based massage programs as an area of work specialization. Mustafa et al.’s exploration of the effects of Swedish massage on kinesthetic differentiation (the ability to perceive, alter, and apply differing levels of force) is an example of massage research focused on elite athletes. I sometimes wonder about the value of research focused on elite athletes, given that few people would seem to directly benefit—and elite/professional sports falls outside the purview of my interests. While athletes obviously require kinesthetic differentiation, we all use it in the process of many activities of daily living, and changes in our differentiation can have significant effect on our ability to function. The introduction and discussion link kinesthetic differentiation to possible fundamental neuromuscular structures and functions. Mustafa and colleagues remind us that their findings are specific to the population studied yet, because of the utility of the result, I’d like to see more research or guidelines for clinicians clarifying when and how to extrapolate such research to non-athletes—and post-sport athletes.(1) The final article, Wiest et al.’s research on the impact of massage in opioid-dependent patients undergoing substance-use treatment, presents a nuanced view into a complex situation where there is a lot of hope for the use of massage therapy. One result of interest is the finding that those participants seeing themselves as capable of being pain-free were more likely to experience clinically significant change in their pain levels. While classic deductive research tries to minimize such patient-centric effects, these findings provide a reminder that clinical relevance and application matter. The work by Wiest and colleagues echoes the recent trend in valuing and assessing patient relevant outcomes, which is an important, welcome perspective to research. Enjoy this March issue of the IJTMB.
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 | 0.004 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.188 | 0.107 |
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".