Lateral epicondylosis: a case study of conservative care utilizing ART and rehabilitation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To present the diagnostic features of lateral epicondylosis and response to treatment by Active Release Technique (ART), a promising treatment for lateral epicondylosis. CLINICAL FEATURES: The most important feature is pain at the lateral epicondyle of the humerus, most notably in actively extending or passively flexing the wrist. INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME: Treatment involves eliminating any inflammation, reducing muscular pain and hypertonicity, correcting biomechanical dysfunction, and restricting/modifying the offending activity. ART was successfully utilized in an attempt to remove adhesions and promote restoration of normal tissue texture. A sports specific rehabilitation protocol was employed to re-establish wrist extensor strength and interferential current and ice were used to control pain and residual inflammation. CONCLUSION: A combination of soft tissue therapy, rehabilitation, and therapeutic modalities is a protocol that may be used by both allopathic and chiropractic practitioners alike, and allow for the athletic patient to return to play as quickly as possible.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".