The efficacy of manipulation of the elbow joint in patients suffering from lateral epicondylitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this investigation was to perform a placebo controlled, randomised clinical study to determine the efficacy of manipulative therapy of the elbow, based on motion palpation findings, in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis . Forty patients participated in the study, all of who underwent a case history, physical examination, and elbow regional examination. They were then randomly assigned to one of the two groups, so that twenty patients received manipulative therapy of the elbow, and the remainder of the patients received detuned ultrasound. All patients received 6 treatments over a 3-week period, with subjective and objective data being collected before the first, third and sixth treatments. The short-form McGill pain questionnaire and the NRS101 questionnaire where used to monitor each patients subjective response, while algometer and dynamometer readings were taken to provide objective data. Motion palpation of the symptomatic elbow was performed on all patients before treatments 1,3, and 6. Examination of the statistical data reveals that there was no significant difference in improvement between the two groups, ie. manipulative therapy of the elbow was found to be no more
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".