MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071075615 · doi:10.1179/jmt.2001.9.2.92

The Use of Strain-Counterstrain in the Treatment of Patients with Low Back Pain

2001· article· en· W2071075615 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyLow back painIntervention (counseling)Back painPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAlternative medicinePsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Strain-Counterstrain (S-CS) is a manipulative technique routinely used by manual practitioners to treat somatic dysfunction. However, no peer-reviewed literature to support or refute its use has been reported. In the four clinical cases reported, S-CS was initially provided as the sole treatment for low back pain. The S-CS intervention phase for each case took approximately one week and consisted of 2 to 3 treatment sessions to resolve perceived “aberrant neuromuscular activity.” Outcome measures were derived from the McGill Pain Questionnaire and the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire. All patients registered reductions in pain and disability following S-CS intervention. No experimental evidence for the effectiveness of S-CS is offered, although outcomes do suggest that a controlled study is warranted to examine the effectiveness of S-CS for the treatment of low back pain.

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.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.279
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.263 · 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