Is There an Association Between Lumbosacral Radiculopathy and Painful Gluteal Trigger Points?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the prevalence of gluteal trigger point in patients with lumbosacral radiculopathy with that in healthy volunteers. DESIGN: In a cross-sectional, multistage sampling method, patients with clinical, electromyographic, and magnetic resonance imaging findings consistent with lumbosacral radiculopathy were examined for the presence of gluteal trigger point. Age- and sex-matched clusters of healthy volunteers were selected as the control group. The primary outcome of the study was the presence or absence of gluteal trigger point in the gluteal region of the patients and the control group. RESULTS: Of 441 screened patients, 271 met all the inclusion criteria for lumbosacral radiculopathy and were included in the study. Gluteal trigger point was identified in 207 (76.4%) of the 271 patients with radiculopathy, compared with 3 (1.9%) of 152 healthy volunteers (P < 0.001). The location of gluteal trigger point matched the side of painful radiculopathy in 74.6% of patients with a unilateral radicular pain. There was a significant correlation between the side of the gluteal trigger point and the side of patients' radicular pain (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although rare in the healthy volunteers, most of the patients with lumbosacral radiculopathy had gluteal trigger point, located at the painful side. Further studies are required to test the hypothesis that specific gluteal trigger point therapy could be beneficial in these patients.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".