Short-Term Effects of Spinal Manipulation on H-Reflex Amplitude in Healthy and Symptomatic Subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to assess Hoffman (H) reflex after spinal manipulation (1) as a function of experimental position in healthy subjects and (2) in patients with low back pain. METHODS: An intervention study was performed to evaluate the effects of sacroiliac (SI) joint manipulation on motoneuron excitability, as measured by the H-reflex. Manual treatment of the SI joint was performed. Hoffman reflex amplitudes before and after SI joint manipulations were measured with subjects lying on the right side (n = 12 healthy subject) or with subjects lying supine (n = 5 healthy subjects), which required turning of subjects onto their sides for SI joint manipulation. Hoffman reflex amplitudes were also measured in 15 patients with low back pain. RESULTS: No significant changes in H-reflex amplitude in healthy subjects receiving manipulation to the SI joint were observed, provided that H-reflex testing and treatments were performed in the same position, that is, the subject was not moved during the experimental procedure. However, changes in motoneuron excitability after SI joint manipulation were observed in patients with low back pain. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that H-reflex responses after spinal manipulation are sensitive to movement/repositioning, and that the H-reflex depressions after manipulation documented in previous studies were movement artifacts rather than treatment effects. The relationship between etiology of low back pain and changes in H-reflex amplitude after spinal manipulation is not clear and needs further investigation.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".