Effect Of Swimming As A Hydrotherapeutic Intervention For The Management Of Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain - An Experimental Study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: to evaluate the effect of swimming, as a hydrotherapeutic intervention, in subjects with chronic non specific low back pain, in reducing pain, improving range of motion and function within a period of four weeks and analyzing the post therapeutic effect on the same outcome measures following four more weeks of non intervention by performing extensive experimental investigation. Design: experimental study Setting: Hydrotherapy unit of Department of Physiotherapy,SVNIRTAR Participants: 51 subjects suffering from chronic non-specific low back pain Interventions: The exercises employed consisted of walking in water and aquatic aerobics as a warm up regimen of 10 minutes followed by swimming for thirty minutes and then Ai Chi technique of relaxation as a cool down regimen for another 10 minutes. All the subjects participated in the exercise program for 4 weeks. The frequency of performing exercises was five days a week. Outcome Measures: VAS, Modified Schober?s Test, Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Results: Statistically significant improvements were detected in all outcome measures compared with baseline, after 4 weeks of intervention. The improvement in physical score was independent of the initial ability in swimming. The post scores taken after 4 weeks of non-intervention noticed a mild change in the statistical values of VAS and Quebec Questionnaire. Conclusions: The results obtained suggested that swimming can be recommended for the treatment of chronic non specific low-back pain as it is useful in not only reducing pain but also improving the range of motion and the function of the individual.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".