The Effect of Ankle Muscles Dry Needling on Brain Activity Map Based on fMRI: a Study Protocol for Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Neuromodulation may be one of the underlying mechanisms of dry needling (DN); however, the mechanism has not yet been fully clarified. Objective: This randomized controlled trial is designed to evaluate DN stimulation of the tibialis anterior and peroneus longus muscles in chronic ankle instability (CAI) and healthy subjects, employing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Design: Clinical study protocol, SPIRIT compliant. Setting: Brain Mapping Laboratory. Population: A total of thirty participants aged between 18 and 40 years old will be included in this study. Twenty healthy participants will be randomized into 2 groups (real DN and sham DN). Ten patients with CAI will also be recruited to the third group and receive only real DN for comparison. Exposures: Real and sham DN. Main Outcomes and Measures: The voxel count, coordinates of peak activation, and peak intensity will be obtained as primary outcomes to report brain map activation. Measurements will be taken before, during, and after DN treatment. The strength of the ankle dorsiflexors, active dorsiflexion range of motion, and McGill pain questionnaire short-form will be used as secondary outcome measures. Results: The results from this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated as presentations at national and international congresses. Conclusion: This trial will explore brain responses to real and sham DN in healthy participants and to real DN in CAI patients. Overall, our results will provide preliminary evidence of the neural mechanism of DN.
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 | 0.035 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.008 |
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".