Comparison of the effects of low-level laser and pulsed and continuous ultrasound on pain and physical disability in chronic non-specific low back pain: a randomized controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the short-term effects of pulsed laser and pulsed and continuous ultrasound on pain and functional disability in women with chronic non-specific low back pain. METHODS: ; and a Control Group (n = 24), where the patients were still waiting for treatment. Before and after 10 sessions of treatment, the intensity of pain was assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS), the quality of pain was evaluated using the McGill pain questionnaire and functional disability was investigated using the Roland-Morris questionnaire. RESULTS: The three treated groups exhibited a decrease in pain (p < 0.001); the Pulsed Laser Group showed the greater relative gain (91.2%), Meanwhile, the Control Group exhibited a worsening of - 5.8%. The three treated groups demonstrated improvement in the quality of pain (McGill) in the total, sensory and affective dimensions (p < 0.005; p < 0.002; p < 0.013, respectively). All treated groups showed a decrease in functional disability (p < 0.001), but the Pulsed Ultrasound Group showed the highest relative gain (83.3%). CONCLUSIONS: The three modalities have significant effects to decreasing low back pain and improving functional disability in women with non-specific chronic low back pain, but the pulsed low-level laser had the best results on pain while the pulsed ultrasound had the best results on improve the functional disability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02150096.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.007 | 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".