Postural deviations from chronic low back pain and correction through exercise therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: It has been shown that five deficits of the proprioceptive system and poor motor skills are associated with chronic low back pain (CLBP). However, the exact mechanism is unknown. The objectives of this study were to assess the dynamic postural balance behavior of CLBP patients, as well as the effects of a specific exercise therapy for the treatment of CLBP and related postural imbalances. Methods: Sixteen females with CLBP and 30 healthy females all between 20 and 40 years of age, of similar height and weight, voluntarily participated in this study. Patients underwent a three-month therapeutic exercise program. The disability and back pain of the patients were measured using the Oswestry and Quebec questionnaires, respectively. A dynamic stability platform system (Biodex) was used to evaluate the postural imbalances in both groups. All measurements of the experimental group were repeated after the therapy. Results: Overall deviation of center of gravity (COG) from COBOS in patients and controls were 3 (±0.3) and 1.3 (±0.2), respectively. Thus, postural imbalances were 2.3 times greater in the patients than those of the controls. After the treatment, the disability and pain of the patients were diminished by 53% and 58%, respectively. Furthermore, with the improvement of the patients COG deviation, both groups had similar posture. Conclusions: The postural orientation of CLBP patients was significantly improved by the therapeutic exercise program. The applied exercise therapy significantly reduced both the pain and the disability of the patients. Based on these conclusions, we recommend that postural correction be included in regular therapeutic exercise programs.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".