Effects of a mechanical pain stimulus on erector spinae activity before and after a spinal manipulation in patients with back pain: A preliminary investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several recent studies in animal models of spinal pain have shown changes in sensory processing and in reflex muscular responses. One group of researchers reported consistent electromyographic responses in the paraspinal muscles of healthy men after spinal manipulation, and they speculated that such responses may underlie some of the observed clinical effects of spinal manipulation (namely, reduction in pain and muscular hypertonicity). OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a painful mechanical stimulus applied above a spinous process influences paraspinal electromyographic amplitude and whether this response is modulated by a spinal manipulation. STUDY DESIGN: Analytic cohort with a convenience sample in a research clinic. METHODS: Seventeen subjects with back pain (9 men and 8 women) were recruited. Electromyographic signals were recorded from the paraspinal musculature during the following procedures before and after manipulation: quiet stance and prone during the application of a mechanical pain stimulus. A 2-way repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compare the effect of the force application on electromyographic amplitude. A second 2-way repeated-measures analysis of variance investigated whether the muscular response to a painful stimulus at either segment was influenced by the manipulative procedure. RESULTS: A statistically significant increase in bilateral electromyographic activity was observed at the painful motion segment; however, no such statistical increase occurred at the segment that was not painful. It appears that manipulation results in a decrease in bilateral local electromyographic activity in the painful motion segment during the application of the mechanical stimulus; however, a statistically significant decrease was not found in the control segment. It was also found that while the subjects were quietly standing, the left erector spinae at a painful segment was the only muscle group to show significant differences before and after manipulation. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that motion segments identified as a problem in subjects with chronic low back pain have an exaggerated local muscular response to a painful stimulus compared with that observed in problem segments. In addition, spinal manipulation appears to attenuate the electromyographic response to a painful stimulus.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".