Effects of Baduanjin on patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is 1 of the common clinical diseases, and many treatment methods can only improve the symptoms of pain in the short term. Traditional Chinese sports - Baduanjin has been proven to have a positive effect on chronic low back pain. However, the quality of the research is low, the sample size is small, and safety observations are lacking. We describe the protocol of a randomized controlled trial to study the efficacy and safety of Baduanjin chronic low back pain. METHODS: This randomized, controlled, evaluator-blind, two-arm, parallel clinical trial will include 90 outpatients with chronic low back pain recruited from the First Hospital of Nanping City, Fujian Province. The patients were randomly assigned to the intervention group (Baduanjin exercise training) and the control group (not receiving any special exercise training) at a ratio of 1:1. Patients in the intervention group will receive Baduanjin exercise training 3 times a week for 24 weeks. The 2 groups received a 4- week follow-up observation at 24 weeks. The main result from the intervention before intervention to 24 weeks later, and the follow-up of 4 changes the visual analog scale score at weeks, and by independent t are tested groups. It will also review the Pain-related disability index, The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale, Health-related quality of life, Roland Morris (Roland Morris) Disability Questionnaire, Overall Perceived Effect (OPE) and safety Compare. Cost data for cost-benefit and cost-benefit analysis will be collected. DISCUSSION: This will be the first study to compare the effectiveness and safety of Baduanjin for patients with chronic low back pain. The results may help healthcare professionals make clinical decisions and may reduce the cost of treatment for this disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2000033908.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".