Bibliographic record
Abstract
【The purpose of this study was to identify the effect of exercise program of on improvement of low back pain in pregnant woman. The subject with pregnant woman were 24 members recruited among in pregnant woman of S Hospital in Bucheon between 25 and 35 years old. 24 patients were randomly distributed into two groups(Exercise group = 12, Control group = 12). William's back exercise, Pelvic floor muscle strengthening exercise and hydrotherapy were applied to Exercise group respectively. Control group were applied only hydrotherapy. The exercise program of low back was given four times a week for 12 weeks between september 2002 and March 2003. The results were compared by VAS(Visual Analog Scale) and MPQ(McGill Pain Questionnaire) at before exercise(12 weeks of pregnancy), after 6weeks(18 weeks of pregnancy) and after 12weeks(24 weeks of pregnancy). The results of this study were as follow : After the back exercise program in the Exercise group and control group improved low back pain by VAS and MPQ with no statistical significance. On the other hand, back pain by VAS and MPQ was statistical significantly improved in the Exercise group than control group.】
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) | 0.003 | 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".