Comparison of Combined Motor Control Training and Isolated Extensor Strengthening Versus General Exercise on Lumbar Paraspinal Muscle Health and Associations With Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Chronic Low Back Pain Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study Design Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial. Objectives To investigate the effect of combined motor control and isolated lumbar strengthening exercise (MC + ILEX) vs general exercise (GE) on upper lumbar paraspinal muscle volume and composition, strength and patient outcomes in individuals with chronic low back pain (LBP). Methods 50 participants with nonspecific chronic LBP were randomly allocated (1:1) to each group (MC + ILEX or GE) and underwent a 12-week supervised intervention program 2 times per week. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed at baseline, 6-weeks and 12-weeks to examine the impact of each intervention on multifidus (MF) and erector spinae (ES) muscle volume (cm 3 ) and fatty infiltration (%FI) at L1-L2, L2-L3 and L3-L4. Results Our results revealed no significant between-groups findings for MF and ES %FI and volume, and patient-reported psychosocial measures. However, both groups had significant within-groups decreases in MF %FI at L1-L2, L2-L3 and L3-L4, with concomitant decreases in MF volume at L1-L2 and L2-L3, and at L3-L4 in the GE group. Each group displayed significant improvements in Kinesiophobia, while only MC + ILEX had significant improvements in pain catastrophizing, anxiety, depression and sleep. Lastly, significant correlations were found between change in Kinesiophobia and upper lumbar MF %FI, and between change in strength and lower lumbar MF and ES size. Conclusions Both exercise interventions may help reduce upper lumbar MF %FI in individuals with chronic LBP, while MC + ILEX could significantly improve important patient outcomes. Our results support the idea that improvements in paraspinal muscle health associate with better patient outcomes. Further high-quality imaging studies are needed to explore these relationships.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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".