Neural and visceral manipulation in infants with congenital muscular torticollis: a feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Purpose] As an alternative to manual stretching, the aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of using neural/visceral manipulation as a safe and effective intervention to increase neck range of motion of infants with congenital muscular torticollis. [Participants and Methods] Ten 4-month old infants with congenital muscular torticollis received eight sessions of neural/visceral manipulation administered for 30-50 minutes without observed pain. Specific palpation techniques addressed restricted tissue areas of neck, head, trunk and extremities. Neck rotation and lateral flexion were assessed by still photography and a computer program calculating ROM angles before, immediately following, and 4 months post intervention. Motor development and social competence were monitored over time using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale and Bayley-III Social Emotional Scale. [Results] Results of analysis of variances revealed significant improvements in passive and active neck rotation and lateral flexion. Significant increases were also found on the Alberta Infant Motor Scale and Bayley-III Social-Emotional scale. [Conclusion] Neural/visceral manipulation can be used safely in infants with congenital muscular torticollis to improve neck range of motion.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".