Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Back pain is one of the most common disorders of the 21st century. Back pain is usually associated with degenerative disease and discopathy and affects 50-70% of the population at some point in their lives. It leads to work absence in 20% of cases and is the fifth most common cause of hospitalisation. Aim: To assess the condition of patients with lumbosacral discopathy before and after physical therapy. Material and Methods: The study assessed 33 patients aged 25-58 years diagnosed with lumbosacral discopathy who were referred to the Rehabilitation Clinic in Połaniec. The following research tools were used: a questionnaire designed by the authors and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Patients were treated with the following physical therapy procedures: diadynamic currents, interferential current therapy, Trabert’s currents, ultrasound therapy, laser therapy, low-frequency alternating magnetic fields, and kinesiotherapy. Results: Following 3-week physical therapy, elimination or considerable reduction of pain and improved physical fitness were found in study patients; the need for pharmacotherapy was eliminated. Conclusions: 1. Lumbosacral discopathy is a difficult clinical and social problem. 2. The disorder restricts or prevents the ability to perform activities of daily living. 3. Physical therapy procedures reduce pain associated with discopathy, improve physical fitness, and eliminate the use of pharmacotherapy. 4. Physical therapy and rehabilitation are a basic part of treatment in this group of patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".