Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) has be-come a major public health problem worldwide. Mulligan has a great role in the treatment of NSLBP. Aim of Study: The study was conducted to compare be-tween immediate effect of SNAG and mulligan lion position in range of motion (ROM), pain, functional ability and kinesio-phobia on patients with nonspecific low back pain. Subjects, Material and Methods: Thirty-four patients with NSLBP participated in the study. Their ages ranged from 20 to 40 years old. They were randomized into two groups. Group A received mulligan SNAG from sitting position and McGill stabilization exercises. Group B received mulligan modified lumbar SNAG lion position and the same McGill stabilization exercises as in group A. Results: The findings of the study showed that: There was improvement inlumbar flexion, extension ROM and pain in group B regarding o group A. There was no significant differ-ence between group Aand B in Oswestery Disability Index and Kinesiophobia. Conclusion: In the present study, it could be seen that im-mediate effect of Modified lumbar SNAGs (lion position) in addition to McGill stabilization exercises was more effective than mulligan SNAGs from sitting addition to McGill stabiliza-tion exerciseson flexion and extension lumbar range of motion, &pain but not in function and kinesiophobia. So, using mulli-gan lion position combined with McGill stabilization exercises may be a major strategy in dealing with NSLBP patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".