Effects of Gravational Muscle Stretching and Strengthening Exercise on the Function Restoration of Patients with Lumbar Disc Herniation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To observe the effects of gravational muscle stretching and strengthening exercise on the function restoration of patients with L4-5 and/or L5-S1 lumbar disc herniation(LDH).Methods Sixty-two consecutive subjects diagnosed with L4-5 and/or L5-S1 LDH in Southern Hospital were recruited in the study.The subjects were divided into the study group(n=30)and the control group(n=32)using random number table.The subjects in the study group were conducted with gravational muscle exercise,while the subjects in the control group were given lumbar traction combined with caudal injection therapy.The symptom duration of each patient was recorded before the intervention.The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale(QBPDS)and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale(NPRS)were used for evaluation at the start,in the middle,and at the end of the treatment,with specific time points as follows:day 1(T1),day 15(T2),day 45(T3),day 60(T4),and day 90(T5).The subjects in the study group were not given any other treatment.Paired t-test and Wilcoxon single rank test were used for intra-group and inter-group comparisons.Results The study group had higher QBPDS score at T2,and lower QBPDS score at T4 and lower NPRS score at T5 than the control group(P0.05);No significant difference in QBPDS score was observed at other time points between the two groups(P0.05).The study group had higher NPRS score at T2 and lower NPRS score at T5 than the control group(P0.05);No significant difference in NPRS score was observed at other time points between the two groups(P0.05).Conclusion The present study indicates that gravational muscle stretching and reinforcing exercise program,which stabilizes the spinal column and maintain the internal and external balance of spinal column,is suitable for the conservative and long-term management of LDH.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".