Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low Back Pain (LBP) is a condition that may originate from an injury, disease, or stresses on different parts of the body that transfer as a feeling of pain in the bones, nerves, or muscles of the lower back. The prevalence of LBP at some point in one’s lifespan is estimated at 85%, and 2-10% of these individuals will live with chronic LBP (CLBP). The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of 7 consecutive days of whole body heating on chronic low back pain in individuals between 30-65 years of age. A water-perfused suit, through which 50°C water was passed, was utilized to increase core body temperature (Tc) by 0.8°C for 7 consecutive days. Pain questionnaires were used to assess changes in CLBP during the 7 days of heating, and at 2-days and 2-week post-heating. The average McGill Pain Scores from heating day 1 (H1) to day 7 (H7) decreased 20.2%. The functional limitation scale decreased 12.5% from H1 to H7 and the symptom scale of frequency and intensity of pain symptoms both decreased 2.8% from baseline to 2-weeks post-heating. Varied results acutely following heating were observed between subjects, suggesting heating may provide relief for acute pain in some subjects. All three pain scales utilized in the present study (McGill Pain Questionnaire, the functional limitation scale, and the symptom scales) suggested improvements in CLBP with repeated whole body heating to a 0.8°C increase in Tc. Additionally, these therapeutic effects were still evident 2 weeks following the last day of heat therapy. These results suggest promising potential for whole body heating as a non-invasive, non-pharmacologic method of treating chronic low back with benefits lasting for days or weeks post-therapy.
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".