Previous history of LBP with work loss is related to lingering deficits in biomechanical, physiological, personal, psychosocial and motor control characteristics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A cross-sectional retrospective study was made of currently asymptomatic workers who perform physically demanding jobs. To further quantify the association between various biomechanical, physiological, personal psychosocial and motor control parameters that linger due to a history of low back disorders. Seventy-two workers were recruited from heavy industry, 26 of whom had a history of disabling low back disorders (LBDs) sufficient to miss work while the others did not. The strength of the study lies in the many detailed variables measured. Having a history of low back disorders was found to be associated with a larger waist girth, a greater potential for low back pain chronicity as predicted from psychosocial questionnaires, perturbed flexion to extension strength and endurance ratios, and widespread motor control deficits across a variety of tasks, some of which resulted in high back loads. In those workers who had missed work due to back disorders, the length of time since their last disabling episode was 261 weeks on average, suggesting that multiple deficits may remain for a period of time. Having a history of LBD is associated with changes in attitudes, in body composition, and in the way people move, load their backs and respond to a variety of motor and stability challenges.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it