Effect of trunk muscle endurance training in pain management and function in sub-acute low back pain – A quasi experimental study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction and Aim: Low back muscle endurance is becoming a major issue because of low back ache. Though many treatment protocols have been suggested and proved effective, endurance exercises have been under less researched area over its effectiveness in comparison to other treatment protocols. The purpose of this study is to determine the effect of trunk extensor muscle endurance training with conventional spinal exercise for trunk extensor muscle in subjects with LBP. Materials and Methods: This is a quasi-experimental study involving 56 patients in the age group of 25-35 years who were allocated in the experimental group (endurance exercises) and control group (conventional spinal exercise) for 3 times per week, for 6 weeks for a duration of 30-45 minutes. Outcome measures used for the study were McGill Pain Questionnaire, RMDQ, 60 sec. spinal extension endurance tests. Results: There was no significant difference found within group analysis in all outcome measures. In between, the group analysis experimental group has shown statistically significant difference in all outcome measures at post-test with the p-value of 0.000. Conclusion: Endurance training has proved to be a much more effective method and provides faster recovery than conventional spinal extension exercise in treatment of patients with subacute low back pain.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".