Impact of Running Exercise on Intervertebral Disc: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".