The relationship between clinical examination measures and ultrasound measures of fascia thickness surrounding trunk muscles or lumbar multifidus fatty infiltrations: An exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) exhibit remodelling of the lumbar soft tissues such as muscle fatty infiltrations (MFI) and fibrosis of the lumbar multifidus (LuM) muscles, thickness changes of the thoracolumbar fascia (TLF) and perimuscular connective tissues (PMCT) surrounding the abdominal lateral wall muscles. Rehabilitative ultrasound imaging (RUSI) parameters such as thickness and echogenicity are sensitive to this remodelling. This experimental laboratory study aimed to explore whether these RUSI parameters (LuM echogenicity and fascia thicknesses), hereafter called dependent variables (DV) were linked to independent variables (IV) such as (1) other RUSI parameters (trunk muscle thickness and activation) and (2) physical and psychological measures. RUSI measures, as well as a clinical examination comprising physical tests and psychological questionnaires, were collected from 70 participants with LBP. The following RUSI dependent variables (RUSI‐DV), measures of passive tissues were performed bilaterally: (1) LuM echogenicity (MFI/fibrosis) at three vertebral levels (L3/L4, L4/L5 and L5/S1); (2) TLF posterior layer thickness, and (3) PMCT thickness of the fasciae between subcutaneous tissue thickness (STT) and external oblique (PMCT STT/EO ), between external and internal oblique (PMCT EO/IO ), between IO and transversus abdominis (PMCT IO/TrA ) and between TrA and intra‐abdominal content (PMCT TrA/IA ). RUSI measures of trunk muscle's function (thickness and activation), also called measures of active muscle tissues, were considered as independent variables (RUSI‐IV), along with physical tests related to lumbar stability ( n = 6), motor control deficits ( n = 7), trunk muscle endurance ( n = 4), physical performance ( n = 4), lumbar posture ( n = 2), and range of motion (ROM) tests ( n = 6). Psychosocial measures included pain catastrophizing, fear‐avoidance beliefs, psychological distress, illness perceptions and concepts related to adherence to a home‐based exercise programme (physical activity level, self‐efficacy, social support, outcome expectations). Six multivariate regression models (forward stepwise selection) were generated, using RUSI‐DV measures as dependent variables and RUSI‐IV/physical/psychosocial measures as independent variables (predictors). The six multivariate models included three to five predictors, explaining 63% of total LuM echogenicity variance, between 41% and 46% of trunk superficial fasciae variance (TLF, PMCT STT/EO ) and between 28% and 37% of deeper abdominal wall fasciae variance (PMCT EO/IO , PMCT IO/TrA and PMCT TrA/IA ). These variables were from RUSI‐IV (LuM thickness at rest, activation of IO and TrA), body composition (percent fat) and clinical physical examination (lumbar and pelvis flexion ROM, aberrant movements, passive and active straight‐leg raise, loaded‐reach test) from the biological domain, as well as from the lifestyle (physical activity level during sports), psychological (psychological distress—cognitive subscale, fear‐avoidance beliefs during physical activities, self‐efficacy to exercise) and social (family support to exercise) domains. Biological, psychological, social and lifestyle factors each accounted for substantial variance in RUSI‐passive parameters. These findings are in keeping with a conceptual link between tissue remodelling and factors such as local and systemic inflammation. Possible explanations are discussed, in keeping with the hypothesis‐generating nature of this study (exploratory). However, to impact clinical practice, further research is needed to determine if the most plausible predictors of trunk fasciae thickness and LuM fatty infiltrations have an effect on these parameters.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".