The effect of six weeks of core stability exercise on pain and trunk muscle endurance in girl students with chronic non-specific low back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims: There is general consensus about the exercise therapy, as a prevention and treatment of low back pain. But because of different methods of treatment, there is no sufficient evidence about the superiority of one method to another. In this study, the effect of 6 weeks of core stability exercise on pain, and trunk endurance muscles were investigated in girl’s students with chronic low back pain. Materials and Methods: A total of 18 patients with a mean age, (24/11±0/31 years), height,(155/42 ±0/003 cm) and weight, (67/59±4/50 kg), were selected among all recalling student that volunteered for this study in Birjand University, and then randomly divided in two groups, as training (10 subjects), and control (8 subjects) groups . The pain levels and trunk muscles endurance were measured by Quebec back pain questionnaire, Sit- up and Sorensen, test respectively. The core stabilization exercises were exerted on a regular basis within six weeks of each 3 sessions a week, each session was conducted for about 45 minutes. For statistical analysis, the Kolmogorov - smirnov normality test, Pearson correlation and T test were used. Results: the results showed, a significant reduction in pain levels, significant increase in trunk muscle endurance (P˂0/05), however, no significant difference was found between two groups. Conclusion: it can be stated that the core stabilization exercises, can be used for reduction of the pain, and it can be considered as a suitable exercise for treatment of low 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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".