Effect of Latent Myofascial Trigger Points on Strength Measurements of the Upper Trapezius: A Case-Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this article was to determine whether strength is altered in the upper trapezius in the presence of latent myofascial trigger points (MTrP). METHODS: This study was case controlled and used convenience sampling. The sample recruited was homogeneous with respect to age, sex, height, and body mass. Participants were assessed for the presence of latent MTrP in the upper trapezius and placed into two groups: an experimental group that had latent MTrP in the upper trapezius and a control group that did not. Eighteen women (mean age 21.4 y, SD 1.89; mean height 156.9 cm, SD 4.03; and mean body mass 51.7 kg, SD 5.84) made up the experimental group, and 19 women (mean age 20.3 y, SD 1.86; mean height 158.6 cm, SD 3.14; and mean body mass 53.2 kg, SD 5.17) made up the control group. We obtained strength measurements of the non-dominant arm using a handheld dynamometer and compared them between the two groups. RESULTS: The difference in the strength measurements between the two groups was not statistically significant (p=0.59). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of latent MTrPs may not affect the strength of the upper trapezius.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".