Effect of Transversus abdominis muscle training on pressure-pain threshold in patients with chronic low Back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Therapeutic training is the most commonly used treatment methods for chronic low back pain (CLBP), and the use of a pressure biofeedback unit for transversus abdominis muscle (TrA) training is one of the core muscle training methods. The study aim of this research is to explore the effects of different intensities (sham training, low-intensity and high-intensity) of TrA muscle training on people with CLBP in pressure-pain threshold (PPT). METHODS: A total of 45 patients with CLBP were recruited, of whom 44 were included in the analysis. Fifteen, 14, and 15 were included in the sham training group, the low-intensity group, and the high-intensity group, respectively. A pressure biofeedback unit was used in performing a one-time TrA training intervention involving 30 times of 180 mmHg TrA contraction training at high intensity for 10 min and 15 times of 100 mmHg TrA contraction training at low intensity for 5 min. The sham training group completed comfort exercises and did not undergo training. The evaluation indicators were as follows: PPT, short-form McGill pain questionnaire, and body surface pain radiation. RESULTS: High-intensity training could activate more waist core muscles than low-intensity training. Significant changes on PPT (units: kgf) were observed in the following four muscles immediately after high-intensity training: iliopsoas [0.69 (0.13-1.25) 95% CI, p = 0.020]; quadratus lumborum [0.84 (0.23-1.45) 95% CI, p = 0.012]; erector spinae [0.66 (0.18-1.15) 95% CI, p = 0.011]; transversus abdominis [0.70 (0.26-1.14) 95% CI, p = 0.004], and in three muscles after low-intensity training: quadratus lumborum [0.61 (0.17-1.05) 95% CI, p = 0.009]; transversus abdominis [0.14 (from - 0.15 to 0.43) 95% CI, p = 0.022]; piriformis [0.55 (0.13-0.98) 95% CI, p = 0.014]. The change in body surface pain radiation immediately after exercise was [- 10.87 (from - 17.51 to - 4.22) 95% CI, p = 0.003] for high-intensity training and [- 5.21 (from - 9.40 to - 1.03) 95% CI, p = 0.019] for low-intensity training. CONCLUSIONS: TrA training could increase the PPT of the waist core muscles and reduce the radiation range of waist pain. The benefits of high-intensity training are higher than those of low-intensity training. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR-TRC-13003701 . Registered 18 October 2013. Code of ethical approval: 2018069.
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 | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".