Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present work we compare the effectiveness of therapy in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain (CNLBP) using classical analytical strengthening and strengthening program based on principles of physiotherapy techniques that focus on the stabilization of the spine and are used in the treatment CNLBP. The experiment included a total of 14 patients diagnosed with CNLBP who were divided into two groups (n = 7), each of who underwent a 12-week training either classical or physiotherapy conceived strengthening. As for the evaluated parameters, we chose the size and quality of pain (visual analogue scale and Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire), restrictions in daily life in relation to LBP (Oswestry Disability Index); we tried to capture a change in the stabilizing muscle function by using a collection of tests according to Kolar (2006). The evaluation took place at the beginning and after the program and then at intervals of six months. The results showed that there was a statistically significant improvement in both groups in the monitored parameters. The difference in results in pain intensity and functional limitations in life when comparing the two groups showed statistically insignificant. Both the groups of patients improved their score in the evaluation of the stabilizing functions of...
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) | 0.001 | 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".