A Systematic Comparison Between Subjects With No Pain and Pain Associated With Active Myofascial Trigger Points
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether standard evaluations of pain distinguish subjects with no pain from those with myofascial pain syndromes (MPS) and active myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) and to assess whether self-reports of mood, function, and health-related quality of life differ between these groups. DESIGN: A prospective, descriptive study. SETTING: University. PATIENTS: Adults with and without neck pain. METHODS: We evaluated adults with MPS and active (painful) MTrPs and those without pain. Subjects in the "active" (A) group had at least one active MTrP with spontaneous pain that was persistent, lasted longer than 3 months, and had characteristic pain on palpation. Subjects in the "no pain" (NP) group had no spontaneous pain. However, some of these subjects had discomfort upon MTrP palpation (latent MTrP), whereas others in the NP group had no discomfort upon palpation of nodules or had no nodules. OUTCOME MEASURES: Each participant underwent range of motion measurement, a 10-point manual muscle test, and manual and algometric palpation. The latter determined the pain/pressure threshold using an algometer of 4 predetermined anatomic sites along the upper trapezius. Participants rated pain using a verbal analog scale (0-10) and completed the Brief Pain Inventory and Oswestry Disability Scale (which included a sleep subscale), the Short -Form 36 Health Survey, and the Profile of Mood States. RESULTS: The A group included 24 subjects (mean age 36 years; 16 women), and the NP group included 26 subjects (mean age 26 years; 12 women). Group A subjects differed from NP subjects in the number of latent MTrPs (P = .0062), asymmetrical cervical range of motion (P = .01 for side bending and P = .002 for rotation), and in all pain reports (P < .0001), algometry (P < .03), Profile of Mood States (P < .038), Short Form 36 Health Survey (P < .01), and Oswestry Disability Scale (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: A systematic musculoskeletal evaluation of people with MPS reliably distinguishes them from subjects with no pain. The 2 groups are significantly different in their physical findings and self-reports of pain, sleep disturbance, disability, health status, and mood. These findings support the view that a "local" pain syndrome has significant associations with mood, health-related quality of life, and function.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".