EFFECTS OF TENSOR FACIA LATAE MUSCLE RELEASE ON BACK PAIN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM Most of the developed countries in the world are facing a major health problem of lower back pain (LBP). According to a survey conducted by NHIS in the year 2002 on the British general population, 38% adults reported low back pain in one year. Hence the present study aims to identify which type of physical therapy intervention is effective in relieving back pain. STUDY DESIGN Randomized Control Trial METHODOLOGY All subjects were assessed using assessment Performa. Pain intensity will be assessed using (VAS 0-10). VAS is reliable and valid model for measurement of pain. RESULTS Study revealed that the pain of the patient was not significantly reduced in both the group with P<0.21 for Group A and P<0.399 for Group B. However on Ostwestry disability Index, Group A shows significant improvement with P<0.21 whereas Group B with P<0.399 has no significance. CONCLUSION The study concluded that both treatment strategies were turned out to be equally effective in improving the pain and disability of the patient with back pain and no statistical and clinical significance has been reported to conclude that which one is more effective than the other.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".