MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1937803861 · doi:10.3233/wor-2005-00407

The etiology of low back pain in military helicopter aviators: Prevention and treatment

2005· article· en· W1937803861 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas W. Pelham, Harold C. White, Laurence E. Holt and, S. Wayne Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueWork · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAircrewCrewAeronauticsAviation medicineLow back painEtiologySittingPsychological interventionPhysical therapyMedicineEngineeringPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAlternative medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low back pain (LPB) is a major health problem among military rotary-wing aircrews worldwide. In order to define the etiology and propose remedies to LBP in helicopter aviators a review and critique of the literature was conducted. In-flight sitting posture and vibration generated by the aircraft were identified as high risk factors for LBP. Consequently, researchers recommended ergonomic modifications to the crew stations. The efficacy of these technical interventions has not been proven. As well, these design changes are not financially practical. Following an in depth kinesiological analysis of the physical demands of this type of flying, and preliminary experimentation, an alternative aeromedical approach focusing on the aircrew rather than the craft is presented. The authors propose a set of flight-specific exercises that might effectively deal with this problem. A thorough testing of this approach is envisioned.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations53
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorkSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207