The effect of pedometer supported walking and telemonitoring after disc hernia surgery on pain, disability levels, and quality of life: study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Surgical intervention is the most common among the methods used to treat LDH, and its success rate is high. Despite this, patients can experience mild to moderate pain and disability after surgery. In the management of this pain and disability, walking forms the first step of rehabilitation and is an easy and long term method. This study was planned to determine the effect of a pedometer supported walking program and telemonitoring after disc hernia surgery on pain, disability levels and quality of life. Methods: This study was planned as a randomized controlled study. Patients will be randomized into the study and control groups through the closed envelope method. Patients in the study group will receive an intervention through a 12 week walking program and weekly telemonitoring. The pain levels of the patients included in the study will be evaluated using the short form Mcgill pain questionnaire, their disability levels will be evaluated using the Oswestry disability index, and their quality of life will be evaluated using the SF-36. Patients in both the study and control groups will be evaluated with regard to pain and disability levels in the follow ups in the 3rd, 7th, and 11th weeks, and with regard to pain, disability, and quality of life in the 15th week. Conclusions: Daily regular walks have great importance in the management of mild lower back pain. This study was planned to determine the effect of walking with a pedometer after LDH surgery with weekly monitoring.
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 | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.008 |
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".