Traditional Chinese Medicine in Distance Physiotherapy of non-specific Back Pain during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper deals with the use of meridian exercises of Traditional Chinese medicine in physiotherapy. On a selected sample of 30 probands aged between 19 to 55 years who met the set criteria, the effect of exercises for non-specific pain in the cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine was examined. The pilot prospective study compares the intensity of pain in 3 areas of the back before the start of a 4-week cycle exercise at least 3 times a week and after the end of the exercise cycle. After a series of meridian exercises there was a statistically significant pain reduction in the cervical spine (p < 0.05), in the thoracic spine (p < 0.05) and on the level (p < 0.05) in the lumbar spine. The pain frequency during the week decreased by an average (p< 0.05) of a day. The pilot study unequivocally confirmed the positive effect of meridian exercises on reducing the intensity of pain in 3 back areas as well as on reducing the frequency of perceived pain. The addressed issue has a perspective both on the level of physiotherapeutic procedures and their diagnostic use and from the point of view of Traditional Chinese Medicine with the impact of meridian exercises on individual elements, such as organ systems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".