Low back pain disability and stay at work: contradiction or necessity?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The incidence of occupational diseases in the population is high and factors such as long working hours, poor posture, psychological and physical stress can contribute to its development. Among work-related musculoskeletal disorders, back pain has a high prevalence. The aim of the present study was to quantify and characterize pain complaints and to identify individuals with low back pain, in order to assess the degree of disability. Participated 226 employees of an institution of higher education. They answered a general questionnaire about location and quantification of pain complaints visual analog scale for pain and the Quebec Disability Questionnaire. Of all the workers, 69.60% had some type of musculoskeletal complaint; of those, 15.41% had low back pain. Considering workers who had back pain, 54.9% were female, 52.94% are under 30 years old and 43.14% between 1 and 5 years of work. As for the final score for the degree of disability, 41.17% had minimal disability and 37.25% moderate disability. The present study found large number of pain complaints and high prevalence of low back pain, resulting in individual's inability and difficulties in performing work activities.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".