MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

IMMEDIATE ANALGESIC EFFECT OF 4KHZ AMFS INTERFERENTIAL CURRENT ON CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN

2022· article· en· W4285237970 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicole Almeida, Luís Henrique Paladini, Lucas Vinicius Dias, RAMON SCHMIDT DE SALES, Ana Carolina Brandt de Macedo

Bibliographic record

VenueColuna/Columna · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidade Federal do Paraná
KeywordsMedicineAnalgesicMcGill Pain QuestionnaireRandomized controlled trialPlaceboLow back painLumbarSignificant differenceAnesthesiaPhysical therapySurgeryInternal medicineVisual analogue scale

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Objective: To analyze the immediate effect of amplitude modulation frequencies (AMFs) of 4kHz interferential current (IFC) on chronic low back pain (CLBP). Method: This is a randomized controlled clinical trial. Sixty-three subjects with CLBP were recruited. The subjects were randomized into 3 groups: the placebo group (PG, n=21) and 2 intervention groups (IG), IG4kHz/2Hz (n=21) and IG4kHz/100Hz (n=21). All groups were submitted to a single session of 30 minutes. Pain was evaluated using a numerical rating scale (NRS), the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), and pressure algometry. Flexibility was evaluated using the Modified Schober Test (MST), the Sit-and-Reach Test (SRT), the Fingertip-to-Floor Test (FTF), and the Passive Straight-Leg Raise Test (PSLR). Results: Comparing IG4kHz/100Hz with PG, we found a significant difference (p<0.05) in NRS in the total and in the MPQ categories, whereas in the comparison between IG4kHz/2Hz and PG, we found a significant difference only in the sensory and evaluative categories of MPQ. Regarding the flexibility tests, we observed a significant difference of both IG4kHz/100Hz and IG4kHz/2Hz in comparison to PG in MST and PSLR, and of IG4kHz/2Hz in comparison to PG in SRT. The 4kHz IFC was effective in immediately reducing CLBP and, consequently, in increasing the flexibility of the lumbar spine and lower limbs. Conclusion: Conclusion: There was a greater number of significant positive outcomes when the 100Hz AMF was adopted. Level of Evidence I; High quality randomized clinical trial with or without statistically significant differences, but with narrow confidence intervals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.650
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueColuna/ColumnaSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207