State, Not Scar · claim VASO-C188 · Observation rung · The phenomenon at the fingertip

Active trigger point sites had significantly larger areas on vibration elastography than palpably normal sites (P < .01).

Not featured in the current editionAI-extractedorigin: split of VASO-C183 (split of VASO-C033 (report 2026-09-09-report-vasocomputation-023157)) by the operator, correcting a split that drifted: one of the two propositions the compound bundled, on the compound's own anchor

source anchor

Results

“Active and latent sites had significantly higher areas compared to normal sites ( P < .01)”

Evidence

Supports· moderateVASO-E091

Ballyns 2011: vibration sonoelastography stiff-area measurements separate active, latent and normal sites — part 2.1

what the source states: Trigger point areas assessed by vibration elastography were significantly higher at active and latent sites than at normal sites (P < .01), with "significantly higher areas compared to normal sites" as the reported finding.
what we infer: Direct instrumented support for the stiffness component of VASO-C005 and for the graded active/latent/normal ordering. Sonographers were blinded to clinical status, which is stronger than the palpation-only literature. It says nothing about what the stiff tissue is (contracted fibre, guarding, fascial change, or vascular).
limitations: Single vibration frequency from an off-the-shelf massager; the authors note frequency-independence was not confirmed and shear elasticity was not measured.
Sites were selected by palpation, so the measured contrast presupposes the palpated classification.
Same NIH lineage as SRC-SHAH-2008; not an independent group.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-172213): VASO-C033 was split into VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-190441, verify-v6) found the passage bears on VASO-C005, VASO-C183 and not on VASO-C182, VASO-C184; the links dropped at intake: The sourceStatement only reports that active and latent sites had significantly larger areas than normal sites, which matches VASO-C183 and generally supports VASO-C005's claim of measurable differences; it says nothing about the specific active-vs-latent mean values (VASO-C182) or the active-vs-latent significance comparison (VASO-C184), which are separate findings in the source not captured by this quote.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-192504): VASO-C183 was split into VASO-C185, VASO-C186, VASO-C187; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-193207, verify-v6) found the passage bears on VASO-C005 and not on VASO-C185, VASO-C186, VASO-C187; the links dropped at intake: The sourceStatement only reports that active and latent sites had significantly larger trigger point areas than normal sites, which generally supports VASO-C005's claim of measurable tissue differences. It does not address the active-vs-latent comparison (VASO-C185), the trend-similarity-to-PPT observation (VASO-C186), or the specific normal-site mean value (VASO-C187), so the passage bears on none of those three.
Corrected by the operator on 2026-09-20 (session_01AiXD4y5Y91KC7iM3uBhWmu, operator-by-hand-v1): relinked from VASO-C005 to VASO-C005, VASO-C188, VASO-C189 — its statement names both active and latent sites as significantly higher than normal; the bearing is read from the record's own statement, not from the reader, and stands for the panel's judgment

Jeffrey J. Ballyns (2011)AI-verified citation

Supports· moderateVASO-E096

Ballyns 2011: vibration sonoelastography stiff-area measurements separate active, latent and normal sites — part 4.1

what the source states: Trigger point area measurements were "excellent classifiers of active versus normal sites" (cutoff point 0.35; AUC 0.9; P < .01).
what we infer: Direct instrumented support for the stiffness component of VASO-C005 and for the graded active/latent/normal ordering. Sonographers were blinded to clinical status, which is stronger than the palpation-only literature. It says nothing about what the stiff tissue is (contracted fibre, guarding, fascial change, or vascular).
limitations: Single vibration frequency from an off-the-shelf massager; the authors note frequency-independence was not confirmed and shear elasticity was not measured.
Sites were selected by palpation, so the measured contrast presupposes the palpated classification.
Same NIH lineage as SRC-SHAH-2008; not an independent group.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-172213): VASO-C033 was split into VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-190441, verify-v6) found the passage bears on VASO-C005, VASO-C183 and not on VASO-C182, VASO-C184; the links dropped at intake: The quoted classifier statistic (AUC 0.9 for active vs normal, cutoff 0.35, P<.01) is accurately quoted and located, and it supports the general claim of measurable biochemical/stiffness/blood-flow differences (C005) and the specific active-vs-normal size difference claim (C183). But it says nothing about the active-vs-latent mean areas (C182) or the active-vs-latent significance test (C184), which concern a different comparison (AUC 0.8, not the AUC 0.9 quoted here); those two claims are not addressed by this particular passage.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-192504): VASO-C183 was split into VASO-C185, VASO-C186, VASO-C187; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-193207, verify-v6) found the passage bears on VASO-C005 and not on VASO-C185, VASO-C186, VASO-C187; the links dropped at intake: The quoted AUC 0.9 classifier statistic for active-versus-normal sites is accurately quoted, correctly located, and supports the general claim that active sites differ measurably from normal tissue (C005). But it says nothing about the active-versus-latent size comparison (C185), the trend similarity to pain pressure threshold scores (C186), or the specific normal-site mean area value (C187), which are distinct data points not addressed by this active-vs-normal classifier statement.
Corrected by the operator on 2026-09-20 (session_01AiXD4y5Y91KC7iM3uBhWmu, operator-by-hand-v1): relinked from VASO-C005 to VASO-C005, VASO-C188 — its statement names active versus normal; the bearing is read from the record's own statement, not from the reader, and stands for the panel's judgment

Jeffrey J. Ballyns (2011)AI-verified citation

Supports· moderateVASO-E104

Ballyns 2011: vibration sonoelastography stiff-area measurements separate active, latent and normal sites — part 3 — toward VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184 — part 1

what the source states: Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that trigger point "area measurements could robustly distinguish between active, latent, and normal sites".
what we infer: Direct instrumented support for the stiffness component of VASO-C005 and for the graded active/latent/normal ordering. Sonographers were blinded to clinical status, which is stronger than the palpation-only literature. It says nothing about what the stiff tissue is (contracted fibre, guarding, fascial change, or vascular).
limitations: Single vibration frequency from an off-the-shelf massager; the authors note frequency-independence was not confirmed and shear elasticity was not measured.
Sites were selected by palpation, so the measured contrast presupposes the palpated classification.
Same NIH lineage as SRC-SHAH-2008; not an independent group.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-172213): VASO-C033 was split into VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-190441, verify-v6) found the passage bears in different directions on the claims the record named; this record carries "context" toward VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184, the rest went to a record of its own at intake: The quoted sentence and AUC figures are accurately reported and correctly located in the Results/Abstract, and the source does not repeat another lab's independent dataset (correctly flagged as NIH-lineage overlap). However, the sourceStatement only reports the ROC/AUC classification finding, not the specific mean-area comparisons that VASO-C182, VASO-C183, and VASO-C184 assert; it therefore bears on the topic without directly establishing those specific quantitative claims, so it is better read as context for them, while it does support the broader claim (VASO-C005) that active sites differ measurably in stiffness/area from other tissue.
Direction set to "supports" (from "context") by the second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-192504, verify-v6) at intake: The quoted ROC/AUC 'robustly distinguish' finding sits in the same Results paragraph and rests on the same underlying area data as the specific mean-difference claims (active>latent>normal, each P<.01); a strong ROC/AUC separation between groups is itself evidence that the group means differ as the claims state, not merely background context. The quote is accurately located and rendered, the NIH lineage overlap is properly disclosed, and the statement is a single atomic proposition, but labeling it 'context' understates its evidentiary bearing on these three specific quantitative claims — it should be read as supporting evidence for each.
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-192504, verify-v6) disputes the stated direction toward VASO-C186: The quoted ROC/AUC 'robustly distinguish' passage is accurately quoted and correctly located in the Results/Abstract, and the NIH-lineage overlap is properly disclosed. But VASO-C186 asserts a distinct finding — that elastography-measured trigger point areas showed trends similar to pain pressure threshold scores — which is a separate sentence/observation in the same paragraph, not established or restated by the ROC/AUC discriminability statement quoted here. The classification-strength quote does not speak to whether the area trend paralleled the PPT trend, so it does not bear on this specific claim even though it comes from the same study and topic area.
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-192504, verify-v6) disputes the stated direction toward VASO-C187: The quoted ROC/AUC 'robustly distinguish' finding is accurately reported and correctly located, and NIH lineage overlap is properly disclosed, but it says nothing about the specific mean ± SD area value (0.17 ± 0.22 cm²) for normal sites that VASO-C187 asserts. A classification-strength statistic does not itself establish a particular descriptive mean, so the passage bears only as context on this specific quantitative claim rather than as direct support.
Corrected by the operator on 2026-09-20 (session_01AiXD4y5Y91KC7iM3uBhWmu, operator-by-hand-v1): relinked from VASO-C182, VASO-C185, VASO-C186, VASO-C187, VASO-C184 to VASO-C182, VASO-C187, VASO-C184, VASO-C188, VASO-C189 — its statement — area measurements distinguish active, latent and normal sites — bears on both comparisons against normal tissue; the bearing is read from the record's own statement, not from the reader, and stands for the panel's judgment

Jeffrey J. Ballyns (2011)AI-verified citation

Supports· moderateVASO-E105

Ballyns 2011: vibration sonoelastography stiff-area measurements separate active, latent and normal sites — part 3 — toward VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184 — part 2.2

what the source states: Trigger point area measurements from ROC analysis yielded an area under the curve of "0.8 for active versus normal" sites.
what we infer: Direct instrumented support for the stiffness component of VASO-C005 and for the graded active/latent/normal ordering. Sonographers were blinded to clinical status, which is stronger than the palpation-only literature. It says nothing about what the stiff tissue is (contracted fibre, guarding, fascial change, or vascular).
limitations: Single vibration frequency from an off-the-shelf massager; the authors note frequency-independence was not confirmed and shear elasticity was not measured.
Sites were selected by palpation, so the measured contrast presupposes the palpated classification.
Same NIH lineage as SRC-SHAH-2008; not an independent group.
Relinked at the answer's re-reading 2026-09-20 (2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-172213): VASO-C033 was split into VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184; this record now cites the parts, and which of them it bears on is for a later reading
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-reverify-vasocomputation-190441, verify-v6) found the passage bears in different directions on the claims the record named; this record carries "context" toward VASO-C182, VASO-C183, VASO-C184, the rest went to a record of its own at intake: The quoted sentence and AUC figures are accurately reported and correctly located in the Results/Abstract, and the source does not repeat another lab's independent dataset (correctly flagged as NIH-lineage overlap). However, the sourceStatement only reports the ROC/AUC classification finding, not the specific mean-area comparisons that VASO-C182, VASO-C183, and VASO-C184 assert; it therefore bears on the topic without directly establishing those specific quantitative claims, so it is better read as context for them, while it does support the broader claim (VASO-C005) that active sites differ measurably in stiffness/area from other tissue.
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-192504, verify-v6) found the passage bears on VASO-C183 and not on VASO-C182, VASO-C184; the links dropped at intake: The quoted AUC=0.8 statistic specifically concerns the active-versus-normal ROC classification, so it has no bearing on VASO-C182 or VASO-C184, which concern active-versus-latent area differences. For VASO-C183, which asserts active/latent sites are significantly larger than normal sites, the AUC finding corroborates that area distinguishes active from normal tissue and should be read as supporting rather than merely contextual, since it independently confirms the same directional finding using a different statistical method from the same dataset.
Direction set to "supports" (from "context") by the second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-192504, verify-v6) at intake: The quoted AUC=0.8 statistic specifically concerns the active-versus-normal ROC classification, so it has no bearing on VASO-C182 or VASO-C184, which concern active-versus-latent area differences. For VASO-C183, which asserts active/latent sites are significantly larger than normal sites, the AUC finding corroborates that area distinguishes active from normal tissue and should be read as supporting rather than merely contextual, since it independently confirms the same directional finding using a different statistical method from the same dataset.
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-192504, verify-v6) disputes the stated direction toward VASO-C186: The AUC=0.8 active-vs-normal figure is accurately quoted and correctly located in the Results, and the NIH-lineage overlap is properly disclosed. But VASO-C186 asserts that trigger-point areas showed trends similar to PPT scores (i.e., a pattern of active>latent>normal mirroring the PPT pattern), which is a different proposition from a specific ROC classification statistic; the AUC figure characterizes classification performance rather than establishing the trend-similarity claim, so it bears on the topic only as context rather than as direct support.
Second reader (claude-sonnet-5, 2026-09-20, run 2026-09-20-answer-vasocomputation-192504, verify-v6) disputes the stated direction toward VASO-C187: The quoted AUC=0.8 statistic describes classification performance for distinguishing active from normal sites, not the specific mean±SD area value (0.17±0.22 cm²) for normal sites that VASO-C187 asserts; the passage is accurately quoted and located, but it does not establish or corroborate that particular descriptive statistic, so it bears only as background context on this claim rather than as support.
Corrected by the operator on 2026-09-20 (session_01AiXD4y5Y91KC7iM3uBhWmu, operator-by-hand-v1): relinked from VASO-C186, VASO-C187 to VASO-C187, VASO-C188 — its statement names active versus normal; the bearing is read from the record's own statement, not from the reader, and stands for the panel's judgment

Jeffrey J. Ballyns (2011)AI-verified citation

an honest empty state

This claim is in the ledger but not in the current edition's featured set. Nothing here has been assessed — that absence is information, not an oversight.

Still missing: plain-language gloss, credibility assessment, diagnosticity assessment, strongest objection, what would change our mind. A claim gains them when an edition features it and the edition's adopted assessment supplies the full treatment — a decision the panel reviews, not a field anyone flips.