MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165657842 · doi:10.2147/jpr.s302683

Potential Role of MRI Imaging for Myofascial Pain: A Scoping Review for the Clinicians and Theoretical Considerations

2021· review· en· W3165657842 on OpenAlexaff
Valerie Evans, Michael Behr, Anshika Gangwar, Michael D. Noseworthy, Dinesh Kumbhare

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pain Research · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMyofascial pain diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineModalitiesMyofascial painModality (human–computer interaction)Muscle stiffnessMyofascial pain syndromePhysical medicine and rehabilitationNeuroimagingMedical imagingReview articleRadiologyPhysical therapyPathologyArtificial intelligenceStiffnessComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The most common cause of chronic musculoskeletal pain is chronic myofascial pain syndrome (MPS). MPS often presents with increased muscle stiffness, and the myofascial trigger point (MTrP). Imaging modalities have been used to identify the MTrP, but their role in the detection and diagnosis of MPS remains unclear. The purpose of this review was to identify evidence in literature for the use of imaging in the role of classifying and explaining the physiology of MTrPs. Since few imaging techniques have been performed on MTrPs, we explored the imaging techniques that can effectively image complex skeletal muscle microstructure, and how they could be used. As part of a scoping review, we conducted a systematic search from three medical databases (CINAHL, EMBASE and MEDLINE) from year to year to analyze past MTrP imaging, as well as analyzing imaging techniques performed on the microstructure of muscle. Previously, ultrasound has been used to differentiate active, latent MTrPs, but these studies do not adequately address their underlying anatomical structure. MRI remains the standard method of imaging skeletal muscle. The existing MRI literature suggests that the DTI technique can quantify muscle injury, strain, and structure. However, theoretically, HARDI and DKI techniques seem to provide more information for complex structural areas, although these modalities have a disadvantage of longer scan times and have not been widely used on skeletal muscle. Our review suggests that DTI is the most effective imaging modality that has been used to define the microstructure of muscle and hence, could be optimal to image the MTrP. HARDI and DKI are techniques with theoretical potential for analysis of muscle, which may provide more detailed information representative of finer muscle structural features. Future research utilizing MRI techniques to image muscle are necessary to provide a more robust means of imaging skeletal muscle and the MTrP.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.091
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.091
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0260.020
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.392 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pain ResearchSame topicMyofascial pain diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207