Is It Useful to Repeat Sacroiliac Joint Provocative Tests Post-Block?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic usefulness of repeating sacroiliac joint (SIJ) provocative tests post-block. DESIGN: Thirty-four patients with suspected unilateral mechanical SIJ pain participated. Eleven had confirmed SIJ origin pain (>79% pain relief with fluoroscopically guided comparative local anesthetic intra-articular blocks), whereas 23 were confirmed not to have SIJ origin pain (<80% pain relief with a single local anesthetic intra-articular block). Six SIJ provocative tests were performed 30 minutes prior to and following the blocks. Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios were calculated for subjects who had three or more positive pre-block SIJ provocative tests and for subjects in whom the majority of the SIJ provocative tests converted from positive to negative (normalized) post-block. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios for subjects with three or more positive pre-block SIJ provocative tests were 0.82, 0.57, and 1.9, respectively (P=0.04). For subjects in whom the majority of the SIJ provocative tests normalized, the sensitivity was 0.89, specificity 0.30, and likelihood ratio 1.3 (P=0.3). CONCLUSION: Multiple positive pre-block SIJ provocative tests have diagnostic utility however post-block normalization of SIJ provocative tests does not.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".