Biomechanical and psychosocial risk factors for low back pain at work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study determined whether the physical and psychosocial demands of work are associated with low back pain. METHODS: A case-control approach was used. Case subjects (n = 137) reported a new episode of low back pain to their employer, a large automobile manufacturing complex. Control subjects were randomly selected from the study base as cases accrued (n = 179) or were matched to cases by exact job (n = 65). Individual, clinical, and psychosocial variables were assessed by interview. Physical demands were assessed with direct workplace measurements of subjects at their usual jobs. The analysis used multiple logistic regression adjusted for individual characteristics. RESULTS: Self-reported risk factors included a physically demanding job, a poor workplace social environment, inconsistency between job and education level, better job satisfaction, and better coworker support. Low job control showed a borderline association. Physical-measure risk factors included peak lumbar shear force, peak load handled, and cumulative lumbar disc compression. Low body mass index and prior low back pain compensation claims were the only significant individual characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified specific physical and psychosocial demands of work as independent risk factors for low back pain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".