Are endogenous opioid mechanisms involved in the effects of aerobic exercise training on chronic low back pain? A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aerobic exercise is believed to be an effective chronic low back pain (CLBP) intervention, although its mechanisms remain largely untested. This study evaluated whether endogenous opioid (EO) mechanisms contributed to the analgesic effects of an aerobic exercise intervention for CLBP. Individuals with CLBP were randomized to a 6-week, 18-session aerobic exercise intervention (n = 38) or usual activity control (n = 44). Before and after the intervention, participants underwent separate laboratory sessions to assess responses to evoked heat pain after receiving saline placebo or intravenous naloxone (opioid antagonist) in a double-blinded, crossover fashion. Chronic pain intensity and interference were assessed before and after the intervention. Endogenous opioid analgesia was indexed by naloxone-placebo condition differences in evoked pain responses (blockade effects). Relative to controls, exercise participants reported significantly greater pre-post intervention decreases in chronic pain intensity and interference (Ps < 0.04) and larger reductions in placebo condition evoked pain responsiveness (McGill Pain Questionnaire-Short Form [MPQ]-Total). At the group level, EO analgesia (MPQ-Total blockade effects) increased significantly pre-post intervention only among female exercisers (P = 0.03). Dose-response effects were suggested by a significant positive association in the exercise group between exercise intensity (based on meeting heart rate targets) and EO increases (MPQ-Present Pain Intensity; P = 0.04). Enhanced EO analgesia (MPQ-Total) was associated with a significantly greater improvement in average chronic pain intensity (P = 0.009). Aerobic exercise training in the absence of other interventions appears effective for CLBP management. Aerobic exercise-related enhancements in endogenous pain inhibition, in part EO-related, likely contribute to these benefits.
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 | 0.017 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".