Immediate analgesic effect of 2KHz interferential current in chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Interferential current is widely used in clinical practice for the treatment of low back pain, but there is no literature consensus regarding its parameters. The objective of this study was to analyze the immediate effect of the 2KHz interferential current in chronic low back pain. METHODS: This randomized controlled clinical trial was previously approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Paraná, with the participation of 105 individuals with chronic low back pain (>12 weeks) of both genders. Participants were randomized in 3 groups: placebo group (PG, n=35), electrical stimulus off; interferential current1 (IG1, n=35), carrier frequency 2KHz, AMF of 2Hz, motor intensity level and IG2, n=35, carrier frequency 2KHz, AMF of 100Hz, sensory intensity level. All groups were subjected to a single application for 30 minutes with 4 electrodes in a crossed-shape position in the lumbar region. RESULTS: The visual analog scale, McGill pain scale, Oswestry Low Back disability questionnaire, Roland Morris disability questionnaire and Algometria of pressure were used for evaluation and revaluation. CONCLUSION: It may be noticed that by the visual analog scale and questionnaires, the interferential current provided an immediate analgesic effect in chronic lumbar pain regardless of the mode of stimulation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".