Modulation of the Flexion-Relaxation Response by Spinal Manipulative Therapy: A Control Group Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effects of spinal manipulation on spatiotemporal flexion-relaxation phenomenon parameters in individuals with chronic low back pain. METHODS: Twenty-seven adults with chronic low back pain participated in this study and first performed a block of 5 complete trunk flexion-extensions. The experimental group (n = 13) was then submitted to lumbar spine manipulation, whereas the control group (n = 14) was placed in a side-lying control position for 10 seconds. All study participants performed thereafter a second block of 5 trunk flexion-extensions. Trunk and pelvis angles and surface EMG of erector spinae at L2 and L5 were recorded during the flexion-extension tasks. Flexion angles corresponding to the onset and cessation of myoelectric silence, normalized EMG, and the extension-relaxation ratio were compared across experimental conditions. RESULTS: A significant reduction of EMG activity at full trunk flexion at the L2 erector spinae level was observed in the experimental group compared to the control group. No significant effect was seen at L5 in both groups. The experimental group presented a significantly increased postmanipulation FRR at L2, whereas the control group ratio did not vary after the "side-lying control position." No significant difference was seen at L5 in both groups. Flexion-relaxation phenomenon onset and cessation angle did not differ across groups or conditions. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that lumbar spine manipulation can, at least for a brief period, modulate stabilizing neuromuscular responses of the lumbar spine in a group of patients with low back pain.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".