Low back pain in adolescents. An assessment of the quality of life in terms of qualitative and quantitative pain variables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Information concerning low back pain in adolescents with scoliosis is rather limited in literature. While the epidemiology of back pain at the age of adolescence has been described extensively, studies evaluating the effects of therapeutic interventions are still sparse. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The study was conducted in two groups with juvenile idiopathic scoliosis Io. The clinical group was 21 persons with low back pain and the control group was 11 persons without pain. In order to assess the quality of life and the level of pain We used the abridged version of WHOQOL (World Human Organizations Quality of Life questionnaire) and MPQSF (Short Form of McGill Pain questionnaire). The treatment consisted of a combination of manual therapy and rehabilitation exercises. RESULTS: We obtained a significant improvement in the area of the physical health: 7.17 in the clinical group (p = 0.000613); 6.12 for females (p = 0.015400); 9.19 for males (p = 0.022311). The assessment of the quality of life was different between the clinical and the control groups. The decrease in pain in the clinical group was 5.71 (p = 0.000132), 5.93 for females (p = 0.001474) and 5.29 for males (p = 0.027709). Data represents more than a double decrease in strong and moderate pain. CONCLUSION: A combination of rehabilitation exercises and soft manual therapy is effective in reducing the low back pain in adolescents and enhancing the somatic facet of the quality of life.
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 | 0.024 | 0.007 |
| 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".