The effects of a 12-week combined motor control exercise and isolated lumbar extension intervention on lumbar multifidus muscle stiffness in individuals with chronic low back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Exercise therapy is the primary endorsed form of conservative treatment for chronic low back pain (LBP). However, there is still conflicting evidence on which exercise intervention is best. While motor control exercise can lead to morphological and functional improvements of lumbar multifidus muscle in individuals with chronic LBP, the effects of exercise prescription on multifidus stiffness assessed via shear wave elastography are still unknown. The primary aim of this study is to determine the effects of a combined motor control and isolated lumbar extension (MC + ILEX) intervention on lumbar multifidus muscle stiffness. Methods: A total of 25 participants aged 18 to 65 were recruited from local orthopedic clinics and the university community with moderate to severe non-specific chronic LBP. Participants performed a 12-week MC + ILEX intervention program. Stiffness of the lumbar multifidus muscle (primary outcome) at L4 and L5 was obtained at baseline, 6-week, and 12-week using shear wave elastography. Changes in stiffness ratio (e.g., ratio of lumbar multifidus muscle stiffness from rest to contracted) were also assessed at both time points. Pre to post-intervention changes in lumbar multifidus muscle stiffness were assessed using a one-way repeated measure ANOVA. Results: = 0.036). There was no change in lumbar multifidus muscle stiffness ratio. Conclusion: This study provides preliminary evidence to suggest that a 12-week MC + ILEX intervention had minimal effect on lumbar multifidus muscle stiffness in individuals with chronic LBP. Further investigations are needed to confirm our findings and clarify the relationship between muscle stiffness and functional outcomes.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".