Innervation of the human costovertebral joint: Implications for clinical back pain syndromes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of pain in the upper back, shoulder, chest, and arm is often made with considerable confusion and may be accompanied by needless expense and suffering by the patient. Despite the paucity of evidence concerning the tissues and mechanisms responsible for interscapular and atypical chest pain or "pseudo-angina," practitioners of manual therapy maintain that manipulation of the costovertebral elements and associated soft tissues may be helpful in the treatment of these painful conditions. OBJECTIVE: We have examined the costovertebral complex in humans with respect to the presence of immune-like reactivity to neurofilament protein and the neuropeptide substance P and calcitonin gene-related peptide, markers that reveal the presence of axons in peripheral tissues. DESIGN: Human costovertebral complexes obtained at autopsy were processed with standard histologic examination and immunocytochemical methods to detect the presence of neurofilaments, substance P, and calcitonin gene-related peptide. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes were descriptive and did not require statistical methods. RESULTS: All costovertebral joints contained innervation within the anterior capsule and synovial tissues. In 4 separate cases, the costovertebral joints contained large intraarticular synovial inclusions or "meniscoids" found to contain small bundles of axons with immune-like reactivity to substance P. Axon bundles were identified in serial section with monoclonal antibodies to neurofilaments as well as with urea-silver nitrate staining. CONCLUSIONS: The costovertebral joint has been considered a candidate for producing back pain and/or pseudo-angina that may be ameliorated by spinal manipulation. This study has demonstrated that the costovertebral joint has the requisite innervation for pain production in a similar manner to other joints of the spinal column.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".