The recovery patterns of back pain among workers with compensated occupational back injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the longitudinal patterns of recovery among workers with compensated occupational back injuries. METHODS: A longitudinal cohort study, with one-year follow-up via structured telephone interviews, among respondents off work because of "new" back injuries. Self-reported pain intensity was recorded at baseline and at four follow-up time points over the course of one year. Workers who answered the questionnaire on at least three occasions (n = 678) were classified into clusters according to their patterns of pain intensity over time using a two-step cluster analysis. RESULTS: Four pain recovery patterns were identified: workers with high levels of pain intensity showing no improvement over time (43%); those experiencing recovery in the first four months with no further improvement or possibly even some deterioration, in the second half year (33%); those experiencing a slow consistent recovery but still with considerable back pain at the end of the follow-up (12%); and those quickly progressing to low level of pain or resolution (12%). Trajectories of average Roland-Morris Disability scores and SF-36 Role of Physical scores for above clusters mapped consistently with the corresponding patterns in pain. However, individuals with fluctuating, recurrent pain patterns showed the shortest cumulative duration on 100% benefit and the earliest return-to-work among other clusters. CONCLUSIONS: Four clinically sensible patterns were identified in this cohort of injured workers, suggesting inter-individual differences in back pain recovery. The results confirm that recurrent or chronic back pain is a typical condition in respondents with new back injuries. Pain intensity and disability scores are good measures of recovery of back pain at the individual level. After initial return-to-work, or cessation of benefits, administrative measures of percentage of respondents back at work, or no longer on benefits, may not accurately reflect an individual's condition of 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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".