MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1033215614 · doi:10.3233/bmr-2004-17205

Low back pain: Effect of coexisting foot deformity on disability

2004· article· en· W1033215614 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nurgül Arıncı İncel, Özlem Bölgen Çımen, Canan Erdoğan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineValgusOswestry Disability IndexDeformityFoot deformityPhysical therapyLow back painFoot (prosody)Pes planusVisual analogue scalePhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryComplication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low back pain is one of the most common health problems facing the developed countries of the world and 75% of the population suffer from back problem at some time during their lives. Sixty-two patients with mechanical low back pain were evaluated for presence of pes planus and hallux valgus deform ities. We grouped our patients as the foot deformity and normal feet groups according to the presence of hallux valgus and/or pes planus. Patients with at least one deformity were accepted as the deformity group. VAS, Quebec back pain disability scale and Oswestry disability questionnaire were inquired to assess disability and pain. Thirty-eight of 62 patients had pes planus and/or hallux valgus in their bilateral feet. There was significant difference between Quebec and Oswestry scores of normal and deformity groups. Our analysis displayed good correlation between indicators of pain and disability: VAS and Quebec and Oswestry scores. We observed that presence of foot deformities increases disability levels in low back pain patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.489
Threshold uncertainty score0.845

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Back and Musculoskeletal RehabilitationSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207