MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2966010660

Topical Analgesic Improved or Maintained Ballistic Hip Flexion Range of Motion with Treated and Untreated Legs.

2019· article· en· W2966010660 on OpenAlexaff
A. Whalen, Kaitlyn Farrell, Stephanie Roberts, Hannah Smith, David G. Behm

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRange of motionHip flexionTranscutaneous electrical nerve stimulationPlaceboAnalgesicPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnesthesiaPhysical therapy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

had a TopAnalg or a placebo gel applied to their hamstrings, rested for 20-min and then either performed static or dynamic stretching. Prior to gel application and after stretching, participants were tested for passive static, active and ballistic hip flexion ROM. Near significant greater ballistic hip flexion ROM for both legs (treated: p = 0.08; 3.6%; contralateral: p = 0.1; 1.6%) were observed with the TopAnalg. With dynamic stretching, ballistic hip flexion ROM of both limbs at post-test (p=0.01-0.007; 3.3-4.2%) and post-10 minutes (p = 0.06-0.01; 2.7-4.1%) decreased with the placebo, whereas there were no significant reductions with the TopAnalg. There was a near significant higher active hip flexion ROM (stretched leg: p = 0.05; 4.6%), and significantly higher ballistic hip flexion ROM (p = 0.04-0.05; 3.4-3.5%) with static versus dynamic stretching for both legs. In conclusion, TopAnalg can increase hip flexion ROM of the treated and contralateral limbs. Secondly, static stretching contributed to greater ballistic ROM in both the stretched and non-stretched contralateral limbs. Hence, TopAnalg may be used to enhance flexibility training with rehabilitation or highly trained athletes.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→