MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043294081 · doi:10.1179/106698103790826455

A Randomized Trial Comparing Interventions in Patients with Lumbar Posterior Derangement

2003· article· en· W2043294081 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyLumbarManual therapyRandomized controlled trialJoint mobilizationLow back painPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychological interventionRange of motionSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This pretest/posttest study compared the outcomes of people with low back pain who were treated with exercises or joint mobilization. Thirty-one patients referred to physical therapy with a physician's diagnosis of lumbar radiculopathy were initially recruited as subjects. All 31 patients were examined and treated by a physical therapist with 17 years of clinical experience. Following the initial examination, those subjects classified into the derangement category (n=25) were randomly assigned to a group that received joint mobilization (n=10) or a group that performed therapeutic exercises as described by the McKenzie method (n=15). The remaining six patients were not classified into the derangement category and were not included in the analysis. The subjects were also classified according to the Quebec Task Force (QTF) system. The patient's pain as reported on the verbal analog scale and the patient's perceived level of function as indicated by Oswestry scores were recorded at the initial evaluation and following the third physical therapy visit. The McKenzie group performed exercises that were based on their response to repeated movements and the mobilization group received manual techniques based on active and passive movements and passive intervertebral motion testing. All subjects were instructed in postural correction. Data were analyzed through the use of t-tests and correlation coefficients. Subjects who performed therapeutic exercise were found to have significantly greater decreases in pain level (p<.014) and significantly greater improvement in function (p<.032) as compared to the mobilization group. Low correlations were found in regard to QTF classification and the outcome measures. The results indicated that exercises based on repeated movements might be more beneficial in terms of pain reduction and recovery of function than joint mobilization in the early stages of recovery from lumbar disc derangement. The results also point toward the importance of including repeated movements as part of the lumbar evaluation to assist in the prescription of appropriate therapeutic exercise.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.340
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.295 · 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