Effectiveness of Yoga-based Interventions on Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP) – A Review of Randomized Controlled Trials
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low back pain (LBP) is defined as the pain and stiffness above the inferior gluteal folds and below the costal margin. The LBP lasting for the duration of 12 weeks or more is considered chronic low back pain (CLBP). The age-standardized incidence rate of LBP observed in South Asia was 2,362.13 per 100,000 population. The global incidence of LBP increased by 50%, from 149,294,134.47 to 223,455,640.82 cases from 1990 to 2019 respectively. Studies reported that the yoga-based interventions reduces disability, pain, pain medicine, stress, anxiety, depression and negative emotions, and improves spinal flexibility, quality of life and positive emotions in patients with CLBP more effectively than usual care and physical exercise. Yoga appeared to be more effective than physical exercise in patients with CLBP which may be because of various aspects of yoga, such as maintaining the yoga postures, breath regulation, mindfulness, meditation, relaxation etc. which separated yoga from physical exercises. It is suggested that the government and public hospitals should take actions to employ the ancient science of yoga to cure the patients with CLBP to avoid side effects and complications.
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.
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 | 0.145 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.029 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it