Comparison Between Classic and Light Touch Massage on Psychological and Physical Functional Variables in Athletes: a Randomized Pilot Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the general belief of the benefits and the widespread use of massage in sport field, there are limited empirical data on possible effectiveness of massage on psychological and physical functional variables. PURPOSE: The main objective of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of classical and light touch massage on psychological and physical functional variables in athletes. SETTING: Athletic club of Valencia. PARTICIPANTS: 20 amateur athletes were recruited from two athletic clubs. RESEARCH DESIGN: A single-blind, randomized, pilot-placebo trial. INTERVENTION: The subjects were randomly allocated to two different groups: a) Massage group (MG) (n=10); b) Control group (CG) (n=10). The intervention period lasted one month (one session per week). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Assessment of the participants was performed at baseline and 24 hours following the completion of the intervention. Outcome measures included hip flexion, knee extension, and mood state. RESULTS: < .05). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that classic massage could be an effective intervention to improve functional physical variables in athletes. However, trends suggest that a light touch intervention could provoke improvements in physiological measures.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".