A Comparison of Lumbar Range of Motion and Functional Ability Scores in Patients With Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A clinical convenience sample of workers with low back problems was tested once for a variety of parameters. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the links between lumbar range of motion and scores obtained from functional evaluation tests. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although lumbar range of motion traditionally has been the standard used to determine disability for the purposes of compensation, a concern arises from the fact that a discrete physical impairment associated with low back pain and diminished range of motion often is never found. METHODS: This study involved 18 workers with chronic low back pain referred to a rehabilitation center for determination of compensation and fitness for return to work. Lumbar range of motion was precisely and accurately measured with a three-dimensional lumbar motion instrument. In addition, typical functional tests were performed for each patient. Comparisons were made between all the lumbar range of motion values and each of the functional ability scores. RESULTS: The most notable finding was the lack of significant correlation between most of the lumbar range of motion values and the functional test scores. Only 9 of a possible 144 correlations were significant. CONCLUSIONS: The relation between lumbar range of motion measures and functional ability is weak or nonexistent. This has implications for clinical practice as it relates to disability determination for patients with chronic low back pain, and perhaps for the current impairment guidelines of the American Medical Association.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".