The Effects of a Pilates Training Program on the Function and Pain of Patients with Disc Herniation with Lumbosciatalgia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the effect of a pilates training program on the pain and function of patients with disc herniation with lumbosciatalgia and to compare this exercise procedure with the general protocol. For this purpose, 34 patients with disc herniation with lumbosciatalgia participated as the sample in this study and were divided into experimental (n=16) and control (n=18) groups randomly. Experimental group performed pilates exercise for 4 weeks, three sessions per week and 45 – 60 min. per session. At the same time, control group performed the general protocol for 4 weeks. The range of motion of lumbar and hip was measured with Schober and passive straight leg raising (SLR) test respectively. Pain and disability was measured with McGill and Oswestry questionnaires respectively. Independent and dependent t tests were used to analyze the data. The results showed that pilates exercise increased SLR angle and range of motion of lumbar and decreased patients' pain and disability (P≤0.05). It seems that pilates exercise improved pain and function of patients with disc herniation with lumbosciatalgia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".