MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093266091 · doi:10.1111/joa.13330

Structural remodeling of the lumbar multifidus, thoracolumbar fascia and lateral abdominal wall perimuscular connective tissues: A search for its potential determinants

2020· article· en· W3093266091 on OpenAlexafffund
Christian Larivière, Sharon M. Henry, Richard Preuss

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Anatomy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationMcGill UniversityInstitut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail
FundersInstitut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et en Sécurité du TravailCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
KeywordsLumbarMedicineTrunkSoft tissueLow back painEchogenicityAbdominal wallFasciaSubcutaneous tissueAbdomenAnatomyUltrasoundSurgeryRadiologyPathologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently remodeling of lumbar soft tissues has received increased research attention. However, the major determinants that influence remodeling need to be elucidated in order to understand the impact of different rehabilitation modalities on tissue remodeling. The main aim of this study was to explore the between-subject variance of different measures of lumbar soft tissues quantified with rehabilitative ultrasound imaging (RUSI). RUSI measures (n = 8) were collected from 30 subjects without and 34 patients with LBP: (1) lumbar multifidus (LM) echogenicity (fatty infiltration/fibrosis) at three vertebral levels (L3/L4, L4/L5 and L5/S1) (n = 3); (2) posterior layer thickness of the thoracolumbar fascia (n = 1); and (3) thickness of the fasciae surrounding the external oblique (EO), internal oblique (IO), and transversus abdominis (TrA) (n = 4). Forward stepwise multivariate regression modeling was conducted with these RUSI measures as dependent variables, using the following independent variables as potential determinants: age, sex, the presence of LBP, body size/composition characteristics (height, weight, trunk length, subcutaneous tissue thickness over the abdominal, and LM muscles), trunk muscle function (or activation) as determined with the percent thickness change of LM, EO, IO, and TrA muscles during a standardized effort (RUSI measures), and physical activity level during sport and leisure activities as estimated with a self-report questionnaire. Two or three statistically significant predictors (or determinants) were selected in the regression model of each RUSI measure (n = 8 models), accounting for 26-64% of their total variance. The subcutaneous tissue thickness on the back accounted for 15-30% variance of LM echogenicity measures and thoracolumbar fascia thickness while the subcutaneous tissue thickness over the abdominals accounted for up to 42% variance of the fascia separating the subcutaneous adipose tissues and the EO muscle. The thickness of IO at rest accounted for 13-21% variance of all investigated abdominal fasciae except the fascia separating the subcutaneous adipose tissue and EO. Pain status accounted for 13-18% variance of the anterior and posterior fasciae of the TrA. Age accounted for 11-14% variance of LM echogenicity at all investigated vertebral levels while sex accounted for 15-21% variance of LM echogenicity at L3/L4 and fascia separating subcutaneous adipose tissue and EO muscle. The function (or activation) of EO and LM at L3/L4 accounted for 8-11% variance of the thoracolumbar fascia and fascia separating TrA and intra-abdominal content (TrA posterior fascia), respectively. Finally, the physical activity level during sport activities accounted for 7% variance of the fascia separating the subcutaneous adipose tissues and the EO muscle. These findings suggest that determinants other than body size characteristics may impact the remodeling of lumbar soft tissues, more importantly the subcutaneous adipose tissue deposits (thickness RUSI measures), which are associated with ectopic fat deposition in the LM and in the fasciae that are more closely positioned to the surface. While age, sex, and pain status explain some variability, modifiable factors such as physical activity level as well as trunk muscle thickness and function were involved. Overall, these results suggest that rehabilitation can potentially impact tissue remodeling, particularly in terms of intramuscular and perimuscular adipose tissues.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations19
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AnatomySame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207