Vertebral Displacements and Muscle Activity During Manual Therapy: Distinct Behaviors Between Spinal Manipulation and Mobilization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The purpose of this study was to compare vertebral displacements (absolute and relative) and muscle responses induced by spinal manipulative therapy of short (spinal manipulation) and long (spinal mobilization) impulse duration. Methods Twenty-five healthy adults (without thoracic pain) were recruited for this crossover study. Six spinal manipulative therapies (255 N peak force) of different impulse durations (100, 125, 200, 500, 1000, and 1500 ms) were delivered to each participant's T7 transverse process using a mechanical device. Impulse duration effect on the vertebral displacement (absolute displacement of T6, T7, and T8 and relative displacement between T7 and T6 and between T7 and T8) and the thoracic muscle response (surface electromyography) were assessed using mixed-model analyses of variance and predefined linear trend analyses. Results Results showed a linear increase in the absolute vertebral displacement for T8 ( P = .002) and a linear decrease in the T7/T6 and T7/T8 relative displacement ( P < .0001) when impulse duration was increased. The data of 24 participants were available for electromyography analysis. A significant main effect of impulse duration on surface electromyography response was observed ( P < .0001, ƞ p 2 =0.43). Planned comparisons for a linear trend between these variables revealed a negative relationship ( P < .0001). Only 13 of the 24 participants with available data presented a muscle response at every impulse duration. Conclusion These results support the assumption that spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization might operate under distinct mechanisms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".