IMMEDIATE ANALGESIC EFFECT OF 4KHZ AMFS INTERFERENTIAL CURRENT ON CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective: To analyze the immediate effect of amplitude modulation frequencies (AMFs) of 4kHz interferential current (IFC) on chronic low back pain (CLBP). Method: This is a randomized controlled clinical trial. Sixty-three subjects with CLBP were recruited. The subjects were randomized into 3 groups: the placebo group (PG, n=21) and 2 intervention groups (IG), IG4kHz/2Hz (n=21) and IG4kHz/100Hz (n=21). All groups were submitted to a single session of 30 minutes. Pain was evaluated using a numerical rating scale (NRS), the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), and pressure algometry. Flexibility was evaluated using the Modified Schober Test (MST), the Sit-and-Reach Test (SRT), the Fingertip-to-Floor Test (FTF), and the Passive Straight-Leg Raise Test (PSLR). Results: Comparing IG4kHz/100Hz with PG, we found a significant difference (p<0.05) in NRS in the total and in the MPQ categories, whereas in the comparison between IG4kHz/2Hz and PG, we found a significant difference only in the sensory and evaluative categories of MPQ. Regarding the flexibility tests, we observed a significant difference of both IG4kHz/100Hz and IG4kHz/2Hz in comparison to PG in MST and PSLR, and of IG4kHz/2Hz in comparison to PG in SRT. The 4kHz IFC was effective in immediately reducing CLBP and, consequently, in increasing the flexibility of the lumbar spine and lower limbs. Conclusion: Conclusion: There was a greater number of significant positive outcomes when the 100Hz AMF was adopted. Level of Evidence I; High quality randomized clinical trial with or without statistically significant differences, but with narrow confidence intervals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.902 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".