Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review was to determine how effective exercise is in the treatment of chronic pain. METHODOLOGY: The literature search identified three systematic reviews and three randomized controlled trials addressing the effectiveness of exercise for the management of chronic low back pain, one systematic review and one randomized controlled trial addressing chronic neck pain, two systematic reviews and three randomized controlled trials addressing upper extremity pain, and three randomized controlled trials addressing fibromyalgia. RESULTS: Randomized controlled trials were better than systematic reviews for providing details of patient subgroups and of exercise programs, but there was a general lack of evaluation of the different subgroups. The studies also failed to assess the different duration and frequency of exercise programs. For chronic low back pain, a systematic review and two of the three randomized controlled trials found exercise to be effective: other findings were uncertain. For chronic neck pain, both the systematic review and the randomized controlled trial provided generally uncertain results, with only one positive-result study in the systematic review. For upper extremity, positive effects of exercise were shown for chronic lateral epicondylitis and for specific soft tissue shoulder disorders. For fibromyalgia, two of the three randomized controlled trials showed effectiveness of exercise. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise is effective for the management of chronic low back pain for up to 1 year after treatment and for fibromyalgia syndrome for up to 6 months (level 2). There is conflicting evidence (level 4b) about which exercise program is effective for chronic low back pain. For chronic neck pain and for chronic soft tissue shoulder disorders and chronic lateral epicondylitis, evidence of effectiveness of exercise is limited (level 3).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".