A Comparison of the McKenzie Approach to a Specific Spine Stabilization Program for Chronic Low Back Pain
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this randomized pragmatic controlled trial was to compare the effectiveness of two specific treatment approaches for patients with chronic low back pain. Thirty subjects with chronic low back pain were randomly assigned to either a McKenzie group or a specific stabilization group. The Functional Status Questionnaire, short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), and passive straight leg raising (SLR) were administered at the initial examination and following a 6-week treatment program. Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks tests, and Mann-Whitney U-tests were used to analyze the data. The stabilization group demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in pain scores and in SLR range of the involved lower extremity (p<0.05). The McKenzie group improved in the present pain index of the SF-MPQ only (p<0.05). Between-group comparisons of changes in the dependent variable scores revealed no statistical differences between the groups.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 it