The Effectiveness of an Unstable Sandal on Low Back Pain and Golf Performance
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
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to assess the effect of unstable sandals on (1) low back pain (LBP) in golfers with undiagnosed moderate LBP, (2) static and dynamic balance, and (3) golf performance. DESIGN: This was a 6-week prospective study where subjects were randomized to a control group and an intervention group. SETTING: Baseline measurements were recorded in the Human Performance Laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Forty male golfers with nonspecific moderate LBP. INTERVENTION: The intervention group wore unstable shoes for 6 weeks, and the control group wore their regular golf shoes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Low back pain, timed balance, and golf performance were assessed at baseline and at 6 weeks. Changes were compared through independent samples t tests. RESULTS: (1) There was a significant difference between groups in the change of perceived LBP scores in the laboratory (test group: -17.5/100 mm, control: -3.6/100 mm) and in the comparison of the first week entries to the last week entries recorded in logbooks (test group: -10.7/100 mm, control group: +2.6/100 mm). (2) There was no significant change in the static or dynamic balance times. (3) There was no significant change in golf performance between the intervention and control groups. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that unstable sandals can be used to reduce moderate lower back pain in this population of golfers without negatively affecting performance.
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 | 0.007 | 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