Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study examined the effects of McKenzie & Williams exercise and pelvic floor muscle exercise after applying conservative physical therapy to chronic low back pain patients. The patients were evaluated for their pain intensity, muscle strength, and muscle endurance. Method: Sixty-eight outpatients were divided into a McKenzie & Williams exercise group and a pelvic floor muscle exercise group. Each group performed its own exercise 30 minutes per day, three times per week, for 8 weeks. Pain intensity was measured by the McGill Pain Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Index. Muscle strength and endurance were also measured. Measurements were made at baseline, and again at four weeks and eight weeks after the intervention. Results: The McGill Pain Questionnaire scores, Oswestry Disability Index scores, muscle strength, and muscle endurance for each group showed significant changes at baseline, and at four and eight weeks after the intervention (p<.05). Significant differences were also evident between the two groups for these four measurements (p<.05). Conclusion: Pelvic floor muscle exercise is more effective than McKenzie & Williams exercise for reducing pain intensity and increasing muscle strength and endurance in chronic low back pain 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.019 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".