Effects of a Mat Pilates Exercise Program Associated with Photobiomodulation Therapy in Patients with Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Sham-Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the effects of combining a Pilates program with photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNLBP). Methods: Thirty-eight adults with CNLBP were randomly assigned to two groups: Pilates exercise + active PBMT (PIL + PBMT) or Pilates exercise + sham PBMT (PIL + SHAM). Both groups performed an 8-week mat Pilates program and received PBMT on their lumbar muscles 10 min before and after each session. The following variables were assessed before and after intervention: peak pain intensity, postural balance (i.e., center of the pressure [A-COP], velocity anteroposterior [Vel AP], and velocity mediolateral [Vel ML]), perceived disability (i.e., Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] and Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMDQ]), and pain-related fear of movement (i.e., Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia [TSK], Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire [FABQ], and Pain Catastrophizing Scale [PCS]). Results: Postural balance variables showed no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) across time or between groups. The groups showed similar (p < 0.05) reductions in peak pain intensity, ODI, RMDQ, and PCS scores, but no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) in TSK and FABQ scores. Conclusion: The mat Pilates program reduced peak pain intensity, perceived disability, and pain catastrophizing in adults with CNLBP, but PBMT had no additional effect on these variables. Mat Pilates alone or combined with PBMT was not able to improve postural balance.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".