MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2437576581

The effect of exercise in chronic low back pain: a pilot study.

2009· article· en· W2437576581 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maricarmen Cruz Jiménez, Maité Urquía

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical therapyMedicineCalisthenicsVisual analogue scaleIsometric exercisePhysical medicine and rehabilitationRehabilitationActivities of daily livingLow back painAlternative medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine if a structured exercise program promotes improved performance on activities of daily living (ADL) and pain perception in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). DESIGN: Prospective pilot study of patients referred to the San Juan VA Medical Center rehabilitation clinics with CLBP from January 1 to March 31, 2001, without neurological deficit or back surgery. INTERVENTION: The therapeutic program consisted of warm up/cool down calisthenics, stretching, back isometric and stabilization exercises and aerobic walking. INSTRUMENTS: Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) were used to measure pain intensity and disability before and after the training period. RESULTS: Six patients completed the study. Back pain intensity and functional disability decreased immediately upon completing the program, and such changes persisted (statistically significant) upon follow up evaluation. CONCLUSION: A well guided exercise program can decrease pain intensity perception and disability in patients with CLBP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→