Dry needle stimulation of myofascial trigger points evokes segmental anti-nociceptive effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that dry needle stimulation of a myofascial trigger point (sensitive locus) evokes segmental anti-nociceptive effects. DESIGN: Double-blind randomized controlled trial. SUBJECTS: Forty subjects (21 males, 19 females). METHODS: Test subjects received intramuscular dry needle puncture to a right supraspinatus trigger point (C4,5); controls received sham intramuscular dry needle puncture. Pain pressure threshold (PPT) readings were recorded from right infraspinatus (C5,6) and right gluteus medius (L4,5S1) trigger points at 0 (pre-needling baseline), 1, 3, 5, 10 and 15 min post-needling and normalized to baseline values. The supraspinatus and infraspinatus trigger points are neurologically linked at C5; the supraspinatus and gluteus medius are segmentally unrelated. The difference between the infraspinatus and gluteus medius PPT values (PPTseg) represents a direct measure of the segmental anti-nociceptive effects acting at the infraspinatus trigger point. RESULTS: Significant increases in PPTseg were observed in test subjects at 3 (p = 0.002) and 5 (p = 0.015) min post-needling, compared with controls. CONCLUSION: One intervention of dry needle stimulation to a single trigger point (sensitive locus) evokes short-term segmental anti-nociceptive effects. These results suggest that trigger point (sensitive locus) stimulation may evoke anti-nociceptive effects by modulating segmental mechanisms, which may be an important consideration in the management of myofascial pain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".