The efficiency of intermittent mechanical traction vs. Gymnastic exercises in persons with lower back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the effects of mechanical tractions vs. static exercises in people with lower back pain. Fifty participants were included, who were randomly divided in the control group (CG 17 women, 8 men) and experimental group (EG 13 women and 12 men). CG conducted classic physiotherapy program, which included static exercises. EG conducted mechanical traction exercises in 15 min length. All the participant fulfilled the questionnaire (The Quebec back pain disability scale – QBPDQ) in the initial and final state. Also, Thomay test with the visual-analog scale of pain were included in the study. To determine differences between the initial and final state, Wilcox test was used, while Man- Whitney test for independent sample was used to determine differences in the final state. Significance was set up at p<0.05. Results showed statistical difference in almost all variables using mechanical traction, while static exercises only had significant effects in several variables. Differences between mechanical tractions and static exercises in the final state only occured in Thomayer test, moving desk and remove the food from the fridge (p<0.05). In conclusion, mechanical traction showed as more efficient method for removing lower back pain.
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".