The Manual Therapy and Strengthening for the Hip (MASH) Trial: Protocol for a Multisite Randomized Trial of a Subgroup of Older Adults With Chronic Back and Hip Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a disabling and costly condition for older adults that is difficult to properly classify and treat. In a cohort study, a subgroup of older adults with CLBP who had elevated hip pain and hip muscle weakness was identified; this subgroup differentiated itself by being at higher risk for future mobility decline. The primary purpose of this clinical trial is to evaluate whether a hip-focused low back pain (LBP) treatment provides better disability and physical performance outcomes for this at-risk group compared with a spine-focused LBP treatment. METHODS: This study is a multisite, single-blinded, randomized controlled, parallel arm, Phase II trial conducted across 3 clinical research sites. A total of 180 people aged between 60 and 85 years with CLBP and hip pain are being recruited. Participants undergo a comprehensive baseline assessment and are randomized into 1 of 2 intervention arms: hip-focused or spine-focused. They are treated twice weekly by a licensed physical therapist for 8 weeks and undergo follow-up assessments at 8 weeks and 6 months after randomization. Primary outcome measures include the Quebec Low Back Disability Scale and the 10-Meter Walk Test, which are measures of self-report and performance-based physical function, respectively. IMPACT: This multicenter, randomized clinical trial will determine whether a hip-focused or spine-focused physical therapist intervention results in improved disability and physical performance for a subgroup of older adults with CLBP and hip pain who are at increased risk of mobility decline. This trial will help further the development of effective interventions for this subgroup of older adults with CLBP.
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 | 0.023 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.009 |
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".