MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915370531 · doi:10.5772/intechopen.84377

myoActivation: A Structured Process for Chronic Pain Resolution

2019· book-chapter· en· W2915370531 on OpenAlexaff
Gillian Lauder, Nicholas West, Greg Siren

Bibliographic record

VenueIntechOpen eBooks · 2019
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChronic painDry needlingPalpationMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyIntervention (counseling)FasciaAlternative medicineSurgeryAcupuncturePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic pain is a significant burden in all societies. The myofascial origins of chronic pain are often unrecognized but play a major role in chronic pain generation. Myofascial release has been shown to be effective and can augment the limited number of therapeutic tools available to manage chronic pain. However, there is no standardized approach that allows for comparative analysis of this technique. myoActivation® is a unique therapeutic system, which targets active myofascial trigger points, fascia in tension, and scars in patients with chronic pain. Targets for intervention are determined through obtaining a history of lifetime trauma and a structured, reproducible posture, and movement assessment. Catenated cycles of movement tests, palpation, and needling are used to achieve the goal of pain resolution through restoration of soft tissue integrity. This chapter describes the distinctive features of myoActivation from the important key elements of the patient’s clinical history, through to the aftercare instructions. Relevant evidence for each component will be presented. Case studies will be used to illustrate some important concepts and the effectiveness of myoActivation. This chapter is relevant to all clinicians that manage people living with chronic pain.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.018

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntechOpen eBooksSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207