A pilot study to determine whether differences exist in histochemical properties between the trapezius and extensor carpi radialis brevis muscles in women with work-related myalgia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate fibre-type abnormalities in women with work-related myalgia (WRM), tissue samples were extracted from their trapezius (TRAP) and the extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB) muscles and compared with healthy controls (CON). For the ECRB samples (CON, n = 6; WRM, n = 11), no differences (P > 0.05) were found between groups for any of the properties examined, namely fibre-type (I, IIA, IIX, IIAX) distribution, cross-sectional fibre area, capillary counts (CC), capillary to fibre area ratio, and succinic dehydrogenase activity. For the TRAP samples (CON, n = 6; WRM, n = 8), the only difference (P < 0.05) observed between groups was for CC (CON > WRM), which was not statistically significant (P > 0.05) when age was used a covariant. A comparison of the properties of these 2 muscles in the CON group indicated a higher (P < 0.05) and lower (P < 0.05) percentage of type I and type IIA fibres, respectively, in the TRAP as well as higher (P < 0.05) CC, which was not specific to fibre type. These preliminary results suggest that the properties employed to characterize fibre types do not differentiate CON from WRM for either the TRAP or ECRB. As a consequence, the role of inherent fibre-type differences between these muscles in the pathogenesis of WRM remains uncertain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".