Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2001, several myths of low back pain still were alive in the general population in Norway, myths that were not in concordance with current guidelines. OBJECTIVES: To investigate perceptions about back pain in Norwegian general practitioners and physiotherapists and to compare these with perceptions in the general population. METHODS: During June 2001, 436 general practitioners (mean age 44.8, range 26-69 years) and 311 physiotherapists (mean age 47.6, range 25-70) were asked to rate their agreement with 7 statements, corresponding to Deyo's 7 myths that formulate 7 common misbeliefs on back pain. The corresponding data from the general population of 807 individuals (mean age 45.5, range 25-70) were sampled during early spring 2001. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the general population, general practitioners, and physiotherapists for all myths, the general population being more likely to agree with all myths. The differences were maintained even after controlling for educational level in the general population. There were no differences between general practitioners and physiotherapists except for the myths "radiographs and newer imaging tests can always identify the cause of pain" and "back pain is usually disabling," whereas general practitioners were less likely to disagree with the myths. Few gender and age differences were found in the professional groups. CONCLUSION: In Norwegian general practitioners and physiotherapists, Deyo's 7 myths mostly seem to be dead and buried. However, it does not seem that this has extended to the public yet, as many myths still are alive in the general population.
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 | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".