MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390743293 · doi:10.1177/19417381231221125

Impact of Running Exercise on Intervertebral Disc: A Systematic Review

2024· review· en· W4390743293 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSports Health A Multidisciplinary Approach · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyIntervertebral discInclusion and exclusion criteriaSystematic reviewPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMeta-analysisDegenerative disc diseaseMEDLINESurgeryPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Running is one of the most popular sports worldwide. However, controversies exist regarding how running affects runner's intervertebral discs (IVD). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to systematically review studies that evaluated IVD morphology or composition changes in response to running exercise, to determine the impact of running exercise on IVD. DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature search was performed for 4 major databases: PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science. STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) healthy people without known IVD disease or major complications such as tuberculosis (IVD degeneration or low back pain are considered as minor complications); (2) subjects performed 1-time or regular running exercises; (3) pre and post comparison of runners or comparison between runners and healthy control subjects; (4) direct or indirect IVD morphology or composition measured; (5) IVD assessed before and after either acute or chronic running exercise, or compared cross-sectionally between runners and controls. Exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) reviews, editorials, letters or abstracts only; (2) animal studies; (3) subjects performed exercise other than running. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3. DATA EXTRACTION: The extracted data included study design and primary outcomes of the included studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was used to evaluate study quality and risk of bias. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies with 632 participants were included in the final analysis; 4 studies measured IVD changes using stature or spinal height, and the other 9 measured IVD changes using magnetic resonance imaging; 6 studies found that running acutely and negatively impacts IVD; 3 out of 5 cross-sectional studies found that IVD parameters are better for runners than controls; 1 longitudinal study found no significant difference in IVD before and after training for marathon in runners; 1 longitudinal study found no significant difference in changes of IVD between runners and controls after 15 years of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Negative changes in IVD exist for a short period of time after running, which may be due to the temporary compression pushing water content out of the disc. Cross-sectional studies suggest that long-term running exerts a mild positive effect on IVD; however, this inference has not been confirmed by high-quality longitudinal studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.377 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it