Photobiomodulation with cluster does not present superior results to placebo in young people with chronic non-specific lumbar pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction and objective.Since the characteristic of chronic non-specific lumbar dysfunction presents a high prevalence and morbidity, and that there are still conflicting results with the use of photobiomodulation, the aim of this study was to analyze the effect of photobiomodulation application in patients with chronic non-specific lombalgy.Materials and method.A quantitative, experimental, randomized study composed of 21 volunteers randomly separated into two groups: 1) the intervention group (IG), who were given an application of photobiomodulation (LED (617nm ±10%, 1,500 mW) and low-level laser therapy (830nm, 150 mW, beam area 12.57mm), combined energy of 8.4 J per area for one minute in four different locations: in regions of greatest pain referred to palpation, on a bilateral basis, area of the applicator -23,8 cm2).2) the control group (CG), in which the device remained switched-off during therapy.All subjects were evaluated by McGill and Roland Morris questionnaires before and at the end of 6 interventions (3 weeks).Results.For both McGill and Roland Morris total pain rates, there was no inter-group interaction or interaction between evaluation and group (p>0.05).In the comparison between evaluations (before and after), there was a significant difference (p<0.001).Conclusions.The use of photobiomodulation in these parameters in young patients with chronic non-specific lombalgy, was not more effective than the placebo for the relief of painful symptoms.Nor did it promote a decrease in the repercussion of lombalgy in the performance of daily activities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".