MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907830663 · doi:10.2340/20030711-1000005

Effects of instrument-assisted soft-tissue mobilization on ankle range of motion and triceps surae pressure pain sensitivity

2018· article· en· W2907830663 on OpenAlexaff
Corrie Myburgh, A Hammern, P Mannfjord, Eleanor Boyle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Rehabilitation Medicine – Clinical Communications · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMyofascial pain diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPublic Health Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnkleSensitivity (control systems)Range of motionMedicineMobilizationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapySurgeryEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Within the practice of physical medicine, instrument-assisted soft-tissue mobilization (IASTM) is increasing in popularity. However, the intervention is still in its infancy and important clinical issues require elucidation; among these are the effects on asymptomatic individuals. METHODS: Twenty healthy males were allocated randomly to either 3 minutes of high-pressure IASTM or active self-stretch of the triceps surae muscles. Each individual served as his own control. Pre-post observations of active ankle range of motion, pressure-pain sensitivity and the occurrence of postintervention petechial haemorrhage were made. RESULTS: A significant within-group increase in ankle range of motion was observed for both groups, but no significant between-group differences were noted. Pressure-pain sensitivity remained essentially unchanged. No petechiae were detected postintervention. CONCLUSION: Notwithstanding the limitations of this relatively small study and in relation to healthy individuals, IASTM increased active range of motion to the same extent as active self-stretch. Heavydose IASTM did not influence pain-pressure sensitivity and petechiae did not develop.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.517
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Rehabilitation Medicine – Clinical CommunicationsSame topicMyofascial pain diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207