Factors Influencing Disability due to Low Back Pain Using the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this research was to compare the difference in disability caused by back pain using scores from the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QUE) according to gender, acute and chronic low back pain (LBP) groups, specific and nonspecific LBP groups and to identify the factors influencing the degree of LBP disability. METHODS: One hundred and thirty-three patients with LBP participated in this study. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of ODQ and QUE were used to compare the differences between men and women, acute and chronic and specific and nonspecific LBP groups. We identified the factors influencing the disability of LBP using a stepwise multiple regression. RESULTS: In comparison with the nonspecific LBP group, the VAS, ODQ and QUE scores were significantly higher and the pain duration was significantly longer in the specific LBP group (P < 0.05). A multiple regression equation with VAS and LBP classification explained the 45.4% variance in ODQ and an equation with VAS, LBP classification, pain duration and gender explained 31.1% of the variance in QUE. CONCLUSIONS: The degree of disability from back pain assessed using the ODQ score was influenced by a pain severity and LBP type. Also, QUE score was influenced by a pain severity, LBP type, pain duration and gender. To assess the disability caused by back pain accurately using the ODQ and QUE, various factors affecting the scores of the questionnaire must be considered.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".