Paraspinal Cutaneous Temperature Modification After Spinal Manipulation at L5
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate local paraspinal cutaneous temperature (CT) modifications after spinal manipulative therapy at L5. METHODS: Twenty subjects with acute low back symptoms were randomly assigned to either a treatment or a sham group (n = 10 per group). Subjects underwent an 8-minute acclimatizing period. Temperature was measured bilaterally with infrared cameras at the L5 level. In the treatment group, a traditional chiropractic manipulation (lumbar roll technique with a pisiform contact on the ipsilateral mamillary of L5) was delivered, whereas with the sham group, the same technique was used, but no thrust was applied. Cutaneous temperature control measurements were taken 2 minutes before (t(-2)) and immediately after the intervention (t(0)) and at 1, 3, 5, and 10 minutes postintervention (t(1), t(3), t(5), and t(10), respectively). RESULTS: At t(0), CT in the treatment group on the treatment side (ipsilateral side) warmed up by 0.2 degrees F, whereas in the sham group, there were no significant temperature modifications on either side. At t(3) relative to t(0), CT in the treatment group on the treatment side warmed by approximately 0.6 degrees F, whereas the contralateral side (nontreatment side) cooled. In the treatment group, significant differences were noted between sides (F = 13.36, P = .002, P = .932) and sides x times (F = 2.97, P = .016, P = .838). CONCLUSION: The effects of a lumbar spine manipulation appear noticeable by changes in paraspinal CT measurements at the level of L5. However, the meaning and mechanisms of CT modifications at L5 are still being investigated.
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) | 0.003 | 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".