The effect of prolotherapy on sacro-iliac joint stiffness: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this pilot study was to measure stiffness of the sacro-iliac joints (SIJ) using Doppler imaging of vibration (DIV) before and after prolotherapy injections. Ten subjects, who were already scheduled for prolotherapy injections to their posterior pelvic girdle, were assessed by DIV, a visual analog scale (VAS) and a Roland Morris Back Disability (RMQ) Questionnaire on two occasions before prolotherapy and once 3 months after prolotherapy injections. Vibrations were applied independently to both anterior superior iliac spines of prone subjects. The vibrations were recorded by a color Doppler imaging transducer placed over the ipsilateral SIJ. The intensity of the vibrations on the sacrum and the ilium was measured in threshold units. The differences between the threshold scores were interpreted as the power loss of vibrations through the SIJ. A paired samples t-test was used to analyze the pain and disability data while the DIV data were analyzed with a Wilcoxon Rank Sign test; statistical significance was set at P = 0.05 for all analyses. There was a significant pre- to post-intervention difference for pain (P = 0.001) and disability scores (P = 0.022) after prolotherapy. There was no statistically significant pre to post-intervention difference in the stiffness of the SIJ as measured by DIV (P = 0.14). Subjects that were thought to have pain arising from SIJ laxity showed improved scores for pain and disability after prolotherapy injections, but this study failed to show a difference in SIJ stiffness as measured by DIV. Other mechanisms for the reduced pain and improved function may need to be considered.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".