On sonoelastography, active sites had larger trigger point areas (mean ± SD, 0.57 ± 0.20 cm²) than latent sites (0.36 ± 0.16 cm²).

Held on its Ballyns 2011 anchor: the record drawn from the paper's stiff-area figures is provisional pending re-reading after the compound claim it cited was refused and split, and carries no weight. The only admitted record attached is VASO-E085 (context, weak), the calf cross-sectional-area difference between active and latent points in a different muscle by a different method, which is a parallel and not a measurement of trapezius sonoelastography.

The paper's own results report the figures (VASO-E087 gives the active 0.57 ± 0.20 cm²; VASO-E089 the latent 0.36 ± 0.16 cm²), with the active-over-latent significance and ROC separation as context (VASO-E093, VASO-E095). Sonographers were blinded to clinical status. One laboratory, one vibration frequency from an off-the-shelf massager, sites selected by palpation, same NIH lineage as the biochemistry; the calf active/latent area difference (VASO-E085) is context from another muscle and method, not a replication.

Both means are quoted from the paper's results (VASO-E087 for the active value, VASO-E089 for the latent value), with the active-versus-latent significance and classifier (VASO-E093, VASO-E106) as context and the calf area difference (VASO-E085) as a parallel from another muscle and method. Blinded sonographers, one laboratory, one vibration frequency, palpation-selected sites.

Ballyns 2011 reports mean areas of 0.57 ± 0.20 cm² at active and 0.36 ± 0.16 cm² at latent sites on vibration sonoelastography (VASO-E087, VASO-E089), with the active-versus-latent significance and ROC separation as context (VASO-E093, VASO-E106) and the calf active/latent size difference as a parallel from another muscle and method (VASO-E085). Blinded sonographers, one laboratory, one vibration frequency, palpation-selected sites, same NIH lineage as the biochemistry.

The abstract's means — 0.57 ± 0.20 cm² at active and 0.36 ± 0.16 cm² at latent sites — are recorded directly (VASO-E087, VASO-E089), with the ROC statement that area distinguishes the site classes (VASO-E104); the active-versus-latent significance (VASO-E093), the latent-versus-normal classifier (VASO-E106) and the calf parallel (VASO-E085) enter as context. Blinded sonographers, but one laboratory, one vibration frequency from an off-the-shelf massager, palpation-selected sites and the same NIH lineage as the biochemistry.

Ballyns 2011 states the two means directly (VASO-E087 for the active value, VASO-E089 for the latent value) and the ROC analysis distinguishes the classes (VASO-E104); the active-versus-latent significance statement (VASO-E093), the latent-versus-normal classifier (VASO-E106) and the calf parallel from Landfald 2025 (VASO-E085) are context. One laboratory, one vibration frequency from an off-the-shelf massager, palpation-selected sites, blinded sonographers.

The descriptive finding that active trigger points had significantly larger stiff areas on vibration sonoelastography (0.57 ± 0.20 cm²) than latent sites (0.36 ± 0.16 cm²) is verified directly against the published results of Ballyns et al. 2011 (VASO-E087, VASO-E089, VASO-E104), and corroborated in another muscle by Landfald 2025 (VASO-E085). The strongest opposing consideration is that the underlying classification of sites as active or latent relied on subjective manual palpation prior to imaging.

The active and latent area values are directly anchored with blinded sonographers (E087, E089), corroborated by an AUC of 0.8 for active versus latent classification (E099) and by a second laboratory finding the same direction in gastrocnemius (E085, weak context). The strongest opposing considerations are the single vibration frequency used, sites selected by an unblinded palpating examiner so the contrast presupposes the classification, and shared NIH lineage across both supporting studies.

VASO-E087 and VASO-E089 directly provide the active- and latent-site means, while VASO-E092 reports that active sites were significantly larger than latent sites. VASO-E085 gives a qualitatively similar active-greater-than-latent size pattern in a different muscle and method, although it is only contextual. The strongest opposing consideration is that the exact result comes from one palpation-selected cohort and one imaging lineage rather than an independent replication of the numerical estimates.

Ballyns abstract/results state active-site mean stiff area 0.57 ± 0.20 cm² versus latent 0.36 ± 0.16 cm² (E087, E089). Sonographers blinded to clinical status. Strongest opposing consideration is palpation-preselected sites and single-frequency vibration method without confirmed shear elasticity.

The values are quoted verbatim from the Ballyns 2011 abstract (E087, E089). The active–latent difference was significant (P < .01; E092, E093), area was a fair classifier of active versus latent sites (E099), and sonographers were blinded to clinical status. An independent group using another muscle and elastography method found the same direction: active points had larger cross-sectional areas than latent ones (28 vs 17 mm²; E085). One discrepancy should be resolved before the classifier figures are cited: the abstract assigns AUC 0.9 to active versus latent (E101), while the Results assign 0.9 to active versus normal and 0.8 to active versus latent (E096, E099); the ordering claimed here does not depend on which is right. Strongest opposing consideration: sites were chosen and classed by palpation, the vibration source was a single-frequency massager with frequency-independence unconfirmed, and the group shares the NIH lineage of the other Ballyns and Shah records. The specific values are tied to this method and study, even though the ordering is robust.

Mean stiff areas of 0.57 cm² at active and 0.36 cm² at latent sites on blinded vibration sonoelastography (VASO-E087, VASO-E089, VASO-E104). The calf parallel and further listings are context (VASO-E085, VASO-E093, VASO-E106). One laboratory, one vibration frequency, palpation-selected sites.