The efficacy of myofascial adhesion manipulation in the treatment of myofascial pain syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of Myofascial Adhesion Manipulation (grip and rip) in the treatment of Myofascial Pain Syndrome. The study was a prospective, unblinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. The sample size used was 60 patients selected from the Durban Metropolitan Area. Only patients diagnosed with active trigger points in either the Trapezius and/or the Levator Scapulae muscles were accepted into the study. The sample was divided into two groups of 30 patients each. One group received Myofascial Adhesion Manipulation, whilst the other group received placebo ultrasound. Each patient received four treatments over a maximum period of 3 weeks. Data was obtained from the patients at the first and second consultations, prior to treatments, and at the fourth consultation, immediately following the treatment. Subjective data was obtained with the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NRS 101) and the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (S-FMPQ). Objective data was obtained from pressure threshold algometry and the Myofascial Diagnostic Scale (MDS)
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".