The analgesic action of Aussie current in women with non-specific chronic lumbar pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/aims Despite electrostimulation being a common adjuvant therapy for non-specific low back pain, the use of Aussie current for muscle contraction is still underreported in the literature. The present study aimed to assess the use of Aussie current in the treatment of chronic, non-specific lumbar pain. Methods Twenty-four young women with chronic non-specific low back pain were randomly assigned to the Aussie current group or control group. Pain (visual analogue scale and McGill Pain Questionnaire), function (Oswestry Disability Index), trunk muscle resistance (the time the participant remained in a predefined static position) and multifidus muscle thickness (ultrasound images) were analysed bilaterally before, at the end of and 30 days after completing the treatment protocol. The treatment group received 12 sessions of Aussie current over a period of 4 weeks. The electrodes were arranged laterally and bilaterally to the spinous processes of the first and fifth lumbar vertebrae. Results There was a reduction in the pain profile for the Aussie group, as measured by a visual analogue scale and the McGill Pain Questionnaire. There was an increase in trunk muscle resistance and in muscle thickness in the Aussie group when compared to the control group. There were no changes in the Oswestry Disability Index in either group. Conclusions Aussie current resulted in significant improvements in pain, endurance and muscle thickness in women with chronic, non-specific 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".