Clinical Impact of Thermotherapy and Spinal Twisting Massage on Chronic Non-Specific Spinal Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the prevalence of chronic non-specific spinal pain rises, the utilization of diverse massage devices for therapeutic intervention increases rapidly. However, research on their mechanisms, particularly those involving spinal twisting, is limited. This study was designed to evaluate the impact of heat application and spinal twisting massage techniques on individuals suffering from chronic non-specific spinal pain. A total of 36 individuals were divided into two groups: a control group (18 participants) and an experimental group (18 participants). The experimental group received heat treatment plus spinal twisting massage twice a week for four weeks, while the control group received heat therapy plus traditional vibration massage techniques. Effectiveness was measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT), the Korean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (K-WOMAC) Index, spine tilt, and Cobb angle. VAS, K-WOMAC, and PPT significantly improved in both groups at all three time points. VAS notably decreased in the experimental group compared to the control group (p-value: 0.0369). Despite improvements in K-WOMAC and PPT scores within the experimental group, statistical significance remained elusive. Furthermore, spine tilt and Cobb angle showed no significant differences from baseline to the 6th week. In conclusion, the application of thermotherapy coupled with twisting massage demonstrates significant efficacy in mitigating chronic non-specific spinal pain, surpassing the pain-relief outcomes achieved through heat therapy in combination with standard vibration massage techniques.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".