MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2985652405

Effects of local vibration therapy on various performance parameters: a narrative literature review.

2018· article· en· W2985652405 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEffects of Vibration on Health
Canadian institutionsCanadian Memorial Chiropractic College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)Computer scienceSet (abstract data type)Inclusion (mineral)Narrative reviewOutcome (game theory)VibrationDuration (music)MedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyBioinformaticsChemistryMathematicsBiologyStatisticsIntensive care medicinePhysicsAcoustics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The therapeutic effects of local muscle vibration (LMV) remain controversial due to a lack of specific protocols. This review was conducted to better understand the effects of various LMV application protocols. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed based on title and abstract and a set of predetermined inclusion criteria. Study quality was then evaluated via the PEDro scale. RESULTS: 23 articles were returned initially, and 21 studies were evaluated. The average PEDro score was 5.97/10. Reported outcome measures included muscle activation, strength, power, and range of motion / flexibility. The frequency and amplitude of LMV ranged from 5 - 300 Hz and 0.12-12 mm respectively, and duration from 6 seconds - 30 minutes. CONCLUSION: Most studies found that LMV elicits beneficial changes in the mentioned outcome measures. However, the methodological procedures used are quite heterogeneous. Further research is needed to understand the optimal application of LMV.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.266 · 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