Delayed-Onset Muscle Soreness and Topical Analgesic Alter Corticospinal Excitability of the Biceps Brachii
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The interactive effect of delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS) and a topical analgesic on corticospinal excitability was investigated. METHODS: Thirty-two participants completed Experiments A (no DOMS) and B (DOMS). For each experiment, participants were randomly assigned to two groups: 1) topical analgesic gel (topical analgesic, n = 8), or 2) placebo gel (placebo, n = 8) group. Before the application of gel (pregel), as well as 5, 15, 30, and 45 min postgel, motor-evoked potential (MEP) area, latency, and silent period, as well as cervicomedullary MEP and maximal compound motor unit action potential areas and latencies were measured. In addition, pressure-pain threshold (PPT) was measured pre-DOMS and at the same timepoints in experiment B. RESULTS: In experiment A, neither group showed a significant change for any outcome measure. In experiment B, both groups exhibited a significant decrease in PPT from pre-DOMS to pregel. After the application of topical analgesic, but not placebo, there was a significant increase in PPT at 45 min postgel, respectively, compared with pregel and a main effect of time for the silent period to increase compared with pregel. Participants with DOMS had reduced MEP and cervicomedullary MEP areas and increased corticospinal silent periods compared with those who did not have DOMS. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that DOMS reduced corticospinal excitability and after the administration of menthol-based topical analgesic, there was a reduction in pain, which was accompanied by increased corticospinal inhibition.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".