MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Does it Matter Which Exercise?

2004· article· en· W2036672123 on OpenAlexaff
Audrey Long, Ron Donelson, Tak Fung

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryTelus (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSciaticaPhysical therapyLow back painRandomized controlled trialLumbarPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedical prescriptionInternal medicineSurgeryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Study Design. Multicentered randomized controlled trial. Objectives. To determine if previously validated low back pain (LBP) subgroups respond differently to contrasting exercise prescriptions. Summary of Background Data. The role of “patient-specific” exercises in managing LBP is controversial. Methods. A total of 312 acute, subacute, and chronic patients, including LBP-only and sciatica, underwent a standardized mechanical assessment classifying them by their pain response, specifically eliciting either a “directional preference” (DP) (i.e., an immediate, lasting improvement in pain from performing either repeated lumbar flexion, extension, or sideglide/rotation tests), or no DP. Only DP subjects were randomized to: 1) directional exercises “matching” their preferred direction (DP), 2) exercises directionally “opposite” their DP, or 3) “nondirectional” exercises. Outcome measures included pain intensity, location, disability, medication use, degree of recovery, depression, and work interference. Results. A DP was elicited in 74% (230) of subjects. One third of both the opposite and non-directionally treated subjects withdrew within 2 weeks because of no improvement or worsening (no matched subject withdrew). Significantly greater improvements occurred in matched subjects compared with both other treatment groups in every outcome (P values <0.001), including a threefold decrease in medication use. Conclusions. Consistent with prior evidence, a standardized mechanical assessment identified a large subgroup of LBP patients with a DP. Regardless of subjects’ direction of preference, the response to contrasting exercise prescriptions was significantly different: exercises matching subjects’ DP significantly and rapidly decreased pain and medication use and improved in all other outcomes. If repeatable, such subgroup validation has important implications for LBP management. A multicentered randomized controlled trial targeted a validated low back pain subgroup characterized by a favorable pain response (centralization) occurring with a single direction (“directional preference”) of lumbar test movements (flexion, extension, or lateral testing). Those treated with unidirectional exercises matching their test findings reported significant improvement compared with two contrasting exercise protocols.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0060.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations437
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207