Comparing neck extensor muscle function in asymptomatic Canadian adults and adults with tension-type headache: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To further the understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying tension-type headache (TTH) by comparing the endurance and strength of neck extensor muscles under acute muscle fatigue in participants with TTH and asymptomatic participants. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of neck extensor muscle performance. Asymptomatic participants and participants with TTH were recruited via social media platforms and from the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières community and employees. A total of 44 participants with TTH and 40 asymptomatic participants took part in an isometric neck extensor endurance task performed at 60% of their maximum voluntary contraction. Inclusion criteria for the headache group were to be older than 18 years old and to fulfil the International Headache Society classification's criteria for either frequent episodic or chronic TTH. Clinical (self-efficacy, anxiety, neck disability and kinesiophobia) and physical parameters (neck extensors maximum voluntary contraction, endurance time, muscle fatigue) as well as characteristics of headache episodes (intensity, frequency and associated disability) were collected for all participants. Surface electromyography was used to document upper trapezius, splenius capitis and sternocleidomastoids muscle activity and muscle fatigue. RESULTS: Both groups displayed similar neck extensor muscle endurance capacity with a mean difference of 6.2 s (p>0.05) in favour of the control group (control=68.1±32.3; TTH=61.9±20.1). Similarly, participants in the headache group showed comparable neck extensor muscle strength (95.9±30.4 N) to the control group (111.3±38.7 N). Among participants with TTH, those scoring as severely incapacitated by headaches were the ones with higher neck-related disability (F[1,44]=10.77; p=0.002), the more frequent headache episodes (F[1,44]=6.70; p=0.01) and higher maximum headache intensity (F[1,44]=10.81; p=0.002). CONCLUSION: A fatigue task consisting of isometric neck extension cannot efficiently differentiate participants with TTH from asymptomatic participants.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".