Pilates method in low back pain: a randomized clinical trial
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
Objectives: To analyze the effectiveness of the Pilates ground method in individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP) in reducing pain, improve the functionality, strength of the transverse abdomen muscle and quality of life. Methods: Double-blind randomized controlled trial in the University clinic. Thirty volunteers of both sexes were allocated randomly to two groups of 15 participants each: Pilates (PG) with Pilates exercises, and Control (CG). The PG held 16 sessions of 60 minutes, held twice a week for eight weeks. Participants were assessed pre-treatment and post-treatment for pain (Numerical Pain Scale - NPS and McGill Pain Questionnaire -MPQ), functional disability (Oswestry), transverse abdomen muscle strength (TrA) by the biofeedback unit test pressure (BTP) (Chattanooga Group, Australia) and quality of life by Medical Outcomes Study 36- Item Short-form Health Survey (SF-36). Results: There was a statistically significant increase in TrA (p < 0.001) and a significant reduction in pain intensity plus qualification (p <0.001) and functional disability (p < 0.001), as well as an increase in quality of life (p < 0.001). A positive correlation was observed between functional disability and pain assessed by Visual Anagolic Scale (VAS) (rho = 0.773; p = 0.001), as well as a negative correlation between disability and quality of life assessed by SF-36 (rho = -0.589; p = 0.021). Conclusion: The present study suggests that Mat Pilates exercises may be a choice for the treatment of patients with chronic non-specific 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.
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 | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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