Pain improvement after three weeks of daily self-executed cross-friction massage using a fascia ball in a patient with recent-onset plantar heel pain: a case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Plantar heel pain is described as sharp pain at the medial plantar aspect of the calcaneus and medial longitudinal arch of the foot. There are various treatment options that usually need a clinician or a therapist for application. The present case report aimed to describe the outcomes of self-executed cross-friction massage using a fascia ball in a patient with recent-onset plantar heel pain. CASE DESCRIPTION: The patient was a 42-year-old man who reported plantar heel pain during the first steps in the morning along with decreased function of the foot and ankle lasting about three months. He was instructed to self-execute cross-friction massage using a fascia ball daily in the evening at home for six weeks. OUTCOMES: Pain during treatment decreased from a Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS)-score of 8/10 and from a Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ)-score of 34/60 at initial treatment to NPRS- and SF-MPQ-scores of 0/10 and 0/60, respectively, after about three weeks. The patient reported no pain and restored function after six weeks of treatment, and in the follow-up measurements. DISCUSSION: Daily self-executed cross-friction massage using a fascia ball may be a useful alternative intervention for treating recent-onset plantar heel pain.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".