The efficacy of manipulation and mobilization in the treatment of Morton's neuroma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial was to investigate the efficacy of foot and ankle manipulation and mobilization as opposed to a placebo treatment (de-tuned ultrasound), in terms of objective and subjective findings in the treatment of Morton's neuroma. This clinical trial consisted of two groups, each with twenty patients. Patients who were diagnosed by the researcher as suffering from Morton's neuroma were included in the study. The patients were randomly allocated into the respective groups. The ages of the patients ranged from 23 to 79 years old. Group A received the de-tuned ultrasound as the placebo treatment and Group B received foot and ankle manipulation and mobilization as well as the de-tuned ultrasound to eliminate any massage effect that may have been incurred. It was hypothesised that foot and ankle manipulation and mobilization would be effective in the treatment of Morton's neuroma. The treatment protocol consisted of a course of six treatments over a treatment period of three weeks. Subjective and objective measurements were taken at the initial, third and final consultations. Subjective data was obtained via the use of the Numerical Rating Scale 101, the Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire and the Foot Function Index. Objective data was obtained by means of digital algometer measurements
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".