Effectiveness of neurodynamic mobilization and MCGILL-type strengthening exercises in patients with piriformis syndrome: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Purpose: Determine the effectiveness of adding a McGill-type strengthening exercise program to neurodynamic mobilization in patients with pyramidal syndrome (PS). Material and methods: This study has a pre/post experimental design of a randomized single-blind clinical trial that will be carried out in the province of Chimborazo - Ecuador, with a duration of 8 months. The final sample will be formed by 58 patients with a diagnosis of SP who will be randomly assigned to a control group: neurodynamic mobilization and to an experimental group: neurodynamic mobilization plus McGill type strengthening exercises. Both groups will be evaluated before, immediately after and after two months of the intervention phase to determine changes in pain, disability, and range of motion. Results: The comparison between the evaluations aims to reveal information on the effectiveness of combining neurodynamic mobilization plus McGill-type strengthening exercises, providing valuable information to contribute to the quality assurance of rehabilitation and physical activity behavior throughout rehabilitation patients. Conclusions: Neurodynamic mobilization plus McGill-type strengthening exercises could reduce pain, improve range of motion and quality of life in patients diagnosed with SP.
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 | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.006 |
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".