Comparison of the effects of the Feldenkrais method versus core stability exercise in the management of chronic low back pain: a randomised control trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the effect of the Feldenkrais method versus core stability exercises on pain, disability, quality of life and interoceptive awareness in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. Design: A single-blinded, randomised, controlled trial. Setting: Outpatient, sports medicine clinic of Mazandaran medical university. Participants: Sixty patients with chronic non-specific low back pain randomised equally into the Feldenkrais method versus core stability exercises groups. Intervention: Intervention group received Feldenkrais method consisting of training theoretical content and supervised exercise therapy two sessions per week for five weeks. Control group received educational programme and home-based core stability exercises for five weeks. Outcome measures: All patients were examined by World Health Organization’s Quality of life Questionnaire, McGill Pain Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Questionnaire and Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness Questionnaire. All outcomes were measured at baseline and the end of the intervention Results: There were statistically significant differences between groups for quality of life ( P = 0.006, from 45.51 to 60.49), interoceptive awareness ( P > 0.001, from 2.74 to 4.06) and disability ( P = 0.021, from 27.17 to 14.5) in favour of the Feldenkrais method. McGill pain score significantly decreased in both the Feldenkrais (from 15.33 to 3.63) and control groups (from 13.17 to 4.17), but there were no between-groups differences ( P = 0.16). Conclusion: Feldenkrais method intervention gave increased benefits in improving quality of life, improving interoceptive awareness and reducing disability index.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".