FORTALECIMENTO DOS MÚSCULOS ESTABILIZADORES DA COLUNA LOMBAR NO TRATAMENTO DA LOMBALGIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The high prevalence in the population and the significant negative social and economic impact generated by the cases of disability justify the importance of the study of low back pain. Objective: Evaluate the effect of an exercise protocol to strengthen the stabilizing muscles of the lumbar spine in the treatment of low back pain. Methods: The proposed protocol was applied in 15 subjects randomly assigned to two groups, treated (TG) and a control group (CG), aged between 20 and 60. Methods of assessment questionnaires were used to McGill and Roland-Morris and stabilizer pressure biofeedback unit. The TG was submitted to an exercise protocol, based on the segmental stabilization, which emphasizes the strengthening of the transversus abdominis muscle. The CG did not receive the intervention. Results and conclusion: The results were that the TG presented significant improvement of lumbar function, the transverse abdominal muscle activation (both p <0.0001) and clinical improvement of pain, but not statistically significant (p = 0.0599).
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 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".