Selective Improvement in Neck and Limb Motor Control Outcomes Following Treatment of the Upper Neck and Spine: A Repeated Measures Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sensory feedback from the upper cervical regions is used by the central nervous system to stabilize the occipito-atlantal (C0-C1) joint for leveled vision and to assess head position, which is used in sensorimotor integration (SMI) of neck and upper limb motor control. However, few studies have specifically investigated the impact of C0-C1 dysfunction and/or its rectification on SMI related outcomes. This study sought to determine the impact of restricted C0-C1 mobility and musculoskeletal pain on neck and upper limb motor control, whether these motor control deficits persist without treatment, and whether motor control improves following treatment designed to improve C0-C1 mobility. METHODS: Twenty-two participants with restricted C0-C1 mobility attended three data collection sessions (baseline, control (2 to 5 days later), and post-treatment) at a private clinic. The One-to Zero (OTZ) system which treats the C0-C1 first followed by other spinal regions if clinically indicated, was administered twice weekly until participants reached 80% improvement from baseline symptoms. Shoulder range of motion, peak force and electromyography during maximal resisted scapular elevation (upper trapezius) and neck flexion (sternocleidomastoid), peak grip, and quadricep strength were measured before and after treatment. Repeated measures ANOVAs with pre-planned contrasts (e.g., control to baseline, and post-treatment to baseline) were conducted. RESULTS: < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Selective improvement in neck and limb motor control outcomes post-treatment suggests that increased corticospinal drive/motor neuron excitability from normalized afferent input may impact gross motor output first. CLINICAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12625000627459. https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=389394&isReview=true.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".