Physical therapy effect on pain and waist functional condition for patients with lumbar hernia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relevance of the topic. Lower back pain (LBP) is a sensitive problem [1]. Studies show that between 60% and 80% of people have felt back pain [3]. Research data have shown that back pain affects both sexes, both men and women, but men suffers pain much more often than women due to harder physical work [16]. Spinal diseases progress to incapacitation and one of the most common pathologies is spinal hernia. The main goals of physical therapy are to restore lost movements, reduce pain intensity, improve functional abilities and quality of life [21]. Research aim - To evaluate the effect of physical therapy on pain and waist functional condition in patients with lumbar hernia. Research tasks: 1. To evaluate the effect of physical therapy on pain intensity in patients with lumbar hernia. 2. To evaluate the effect of physical therapy on lumbar spine mobility in patients with lumbar hernia. 3. To evaluate the effect of physical therapy on the static endurance of the waist muscles in patients with lumbar hernia. The study included 14 patients with lumbar hernia. Used assessment methods: Digital Analog Pain Scale (DAPS) - to assess pain intensity, modified Schuber sample - to determine lumbar spine mobility, McGill test - to assess static torso muscle endurance. Research results: After physical therapy procedures, the intensity of pain decreased, the mobility of the lumbar spine improved, and the static endurance of the waist muscles improved.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".