MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991664247 · doi:10.1067/mmt.2002.120414

First prize central motor excitability changes after spinal manipulation: A transcranial magnetic stimulation study

2002· article· en· W1991664247 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. Donald Dishman, Kevin Ball, Jeanmarie R. Burke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationMedicineSpinal manipulationMotor neuronStimulationSpinal cordNeuroscienceH-reflexEvoked potentialMotor systemPhysical medicine and rehabilitationElectromyographyAnesthesiaLow back painAudiologyPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The physiologic mechanism by which spinal manipulation may reduce pain and muscular spasm is not fully understood. One such mechanistic theory proposed is that spinal manipulation may intervene in the cycle of pain and spasm by affecting the resting excitability of the motoneuron pool in the spinal cord. Previous data from our laboratory indicate that spinal manipulation leads to attenuation of the excitability of the motor neuron pool when assessed by means of peripheral nerve Ia-afferent stimulation (Hoffmann reflex). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of lumbar spinal manipulation on the excitability of the motor neuron pool as assessed by means of transcranial magnetic stimulation. METHODS: Motor-evoked potentials were recorded subsequent to transcranial magnetic stimulation. The motor-evoked potential peak-to-peak amplitudes in the right gastrocnemius muscle of healthy volunteers (n = 24) were measured before and after homolateral L5-S1 spinal manipulation (experimental group) or side-posture positioning with no manipulative thrust applied (control group). Immediately after the group-specific procedure, and again at 5 and 10 minutes after the procedure, 10 motor-evoked potential responses were measured at a rate of 0.05 Hz. An optical tracking system (OptoTRAK, Northern Digital Inc, Waterloo, Canada [<0.10 mm root-mean-square]) was used to monitor the 3-dimensional (3-D) position and orientation of the transcranial magnetic stimulation coil, in real time, for each trial. RESULTS: The amplitudes of the motor-evoked potentials were significantly facilitated from 20 to 60 seconds relative to the prebaseline value after L5-S1 spinal manipulation, without a concomitant change after the positioning (control) procedure. CONCLUSIONS: When motor neuron pool excitability is measured directly by central corticospinal activation with transcranial magnetic stimulation techniques, a transient but significant facilitation occurs as a consequence of spinal manipulation. Thus, a basic neurophysiologic response to spinal manipulation is central motor facilitation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.382
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.036 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations111
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Manipulative and Physiological TherapeuticsSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207