Physiotherapy intervention for posture improvement in individual with scoliosis: A case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Scoliosis is a structural spinal deformity marked by an abnormal sideways curvature and a loss of the spine's natural front-to-back alignment, resulting in postural imbalances. This study investigates how physiotherapy interventions improve posture in individuals with scoliosis. Methods: This qualitative descriptive-analytic case study utilized physiotherapy interventions such as stretching exercises, Pilates, core stability training, myofascial release, and manipulation therapy. Outcome measures included a scoliometer (spinal curvature), goniometer (lumbar range of motion), McGill's Torso Muscular Endurance Test Battery (core endurance), volumetric exerciser (lung capacity), measuring tape (limb length), Clarke's angle method (foot arch assessment), and Zebris FDM (body force pressure and center of pressure movement during stance). Results: Physiotherapy improved postural alignment, reducing spinal curvature from 9 degrees to 3 degrees and increasing lumbar flexion from 61 degrees to 75 degrees. Core endurance increased, as evidenced by a 1.06-second improvement in the flexion-extension ratio and a 0.90-second bilateral increase in side-bridge endurance. Limb length discrepancy decreased from 2.5 cm to 0.5 cm, enhancing symmetry in both true and apparent lengths. Foot arch asymmetry also improved, with the right arch increasing from 45 degrees to 46 degrees and the left from 39.7 degrees to 42.5 degrees. Conversely, lung capacity declined from 1363 mL to 1238 mL. Force pressure distribution became more asymmetrical in most cases, particularly affecting the longer limb in individuals with scoliosis, and center of pressure movement increased from 51.5 mm to 76.5 mm, indicating altered balance and postural control. Conclusion: Over two months, physiotherapy effectively improved postural alignment and musculoskeletal function in individuals with scoliosis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".