A STUDY TO COMPARE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FELDENKRAIS EXERCISE VERSUS PILATES EXERCISE ON FUNCTIONAL DISABILITY AND CORE MUSCLE ENDURANCE IN SUBJECTS WITH NONSPECIFIC CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low back pain is the most common health problem and has a huge impact on adults. Worldwide LBP is the problem that causes a greater number of years of disability. It leads to loss of functionality and affects ADL activities and Quality of life. The prevalence of LBP is more in undergraduate students of medical college in the age group of 18 to 25. The sample of 30 students with Non-specific chronic LBP was selected based on inclusion criteria, they were divided into group A (15), and group B (15), and these groups trained with specific training exercises for 6 weeks. After the training for 6 weeks, postassessment was done using QBPDS and McGill endurance test. The statistical analysis done by using unpaired 't' test with the values of Group A and Group B shows the significance of (p<0.05). Between the group analysis of the post values shows in the Group B is significant than Group A. After the statistical analysis, it shows that there is an improvement in core muscle endurance and functional disability in Group B (Pilates exercise) than Group A (Feldenkrais exercise) which shows that Group B is more significant than Group A.
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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".