MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996298306 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v3n2p134

The Effect of Upper Trapezius Latent Myofascial Trigger Points on Neck Pain and Disability

2011· article· en· W1996298306 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Magesh Anand Doraisamy, Anshul Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMyofascial pain diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeck painPhysical therapyMusculoskeletal painPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To compare neck pain and disability between people with and without latent myofascial trigger points (MTrP) in Upper Trapezius. Methods: The participants of the study were asked to fill the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPNQ) following which bilateral upper trapezius muscles were assessed for the presence of latent MTrP. The participants were placed into two groups; an experimental group who had latent MTrP in upper trapezius and a control group who did not have trigger points. Twenty seven people (22 women and 5 men, age range 18 to 22 years, mean age 19.62 +/- 1.33 years) were in the experimental group and Fifteen people (10 women and 5 men, age range 18 to 23 years, mean age 18.86 +/- 1.55 years) were in the control group. Analysis: The scores from the NPNQ was compared between the two groups using unpaired‘t’ test. Results: The results showed that the neck pain and disability is significantly higher in people with latent MTrP than the people without Latent MTrP. Conclusion: The latent MTrP despite of being quiescent might have a significant role to play in influencing neck pain and disability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicMyofascial pain diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207