Work-Related Recovery Expectations and the Prognosis of Chronic Low Back Pain Within a Workers??? Compensation Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We examined the association between work-related recovery expectations and return-to-work in patients with chronic back pain. METHODS: A prospective cohort of workers receiving time-loss benefits for back pain of at least 6 weeks' duration was studied. Workers completed a battery of measures, including a work-related recovery expectations questionnaire. Outcomes included surrogate indicators of timely return-to-work (days until suspension of time-loss benefits) and recovery (claim closure) censored at 1 year. Analysis included multivariable Cox and logistic regression. RESULTS: The sample was predominantly male (63%), with a mean age of 42 years. Positive work-related recovery expectations predicted a 26% faster suspension of time-loss benefits (95% confidence interval = 8-40%) and explained 7% of the variation in this outcome. CONCLUSION: Recovery expectations provide important information for predicting time to return-to-work, as measured through suspension of time-loss benefits (R approximately 7%) in patients with chronic 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".