Spinal Manipulation Therapy Improves Tactile Allodynia and Peripheral Nerve Functionality and Modulates Blood Oxidative Stress Markers in Rats Exposed to Knee-Joint Immobilization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to evaluate the effect of manually assisted lumbar spinal manipulation therapy on tactile allodynia, peripheral nerve functional recovery, and oxidative markers in rats exposed to knee immobilization-inducing hypersensitivity. METHODS: Tactile allodynia and sciatic, tibial, and peroneal functional indices were assessed before the knee joint immobilization, 24 hours after the knee cast removal, and 24 hours after 3 weeks of lumbar therapy with the Activator Adjusting Instrument, model 4 (AAI 4). Subsequently, the blood was collected from each rat, and oxidative markers such as lipid hydroperoxide levels; nitric oxide metabolites; and superoxide dismutase, catalase, and glutathione peroxidase activities were assessed. RESULTS: The AAI 4 improved the immobilization-induced allodynia and recovered the peripheral nerve functional indices impaired after knee immobilization. Immobilized rats treated with AAI 4 therapy presented a lack of significant changes in lipid hydroperoxides and nitric oxide metabolites in the plasma contrasting with rats that were kept freely in their cages, with no therapy applied, which presented elevated lipid hydroperoxides levels. Also, the antioxidant catalase enzymatic activity decreased in the blood of rats immobilized and treated with AAI 4. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that manually assisted lumbar spinal manipulation therapy modulates systemic oxidative stress, which possibly contributes to the analgesia and recovery of peripheral nerve functionality.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".