COMPARATIVE EFFECT OF TRUNK BALANCE EXERCISES OVER STRENGTHENING EXERCISES IN CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN AMONG WORKING WOME
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background of the study: Chronic low back pain is the clinical condition affecting the lower portion of the spine and it is caused by the injury to the muscle (strain) and ligament (sprain).The main object was to compare the effect on chronic low back pain between trunk balance exercises and strengthening exercises among working women.Methodology: A total of 30 patients were selected with age group between 30-50 years.Working women were included after specific selection criteria for the study.Visual analog scale and Quebec back pain disability questionnaire is used to measure the chronic low back pain before and after the study.The trunk balance exercises and strengthening exercises were given to all the participants.Both group A and B were independently prescribed exercise performed for alternate days in a week for 30 minutes per day and this would have been followed for 8 weeks.Paired t-test analysis was used to find the significant difference between pre and post-test measurements.Results: After the analysis, when comparing the trunk balance exercises and the strengthening exercises, the results revealed that there is the significant difference improvement on chronic low back pain in both the groups trunk balance exercises and strengthening exercises.Trunk balance exercises is more efficient to reduce the chronic low back pain (P value > 0.0001).Conclusion: The study showed beneficial results in both the groups, the results reflected that the trunk balancing exercises had better improvement than the strengthening exercise group on chronic low back pain among working women.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".