Distal Lower-Extremity Pain and Work Postures in the Quebec Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Standing at work has been associated with discomfort and cardiovascular symptoms. Because standing postures vary in duration, mobility, and constraint, we explored associations between specific postures and pain in the lower extremities. METHODS: We used multiple logistic regression to analyze associations between work factors and pain in the lower extremities during the previous 12 months that interfered with usual activities. We used data from among 7757 workers who were interviewed in the 1998 Quebec Health and Social Survey. RESULTS: Among all respondents, 9.4% reported significant ankle or foot pain, and 6.4% had lower-leg or calf pain. Significantly more women than men had pain at both sites. Both leg or calf and ankle or foot pain were strongly associated with standing postures, whole-body vibration, psychological distress, female gender, and being aged 50 years or older. Constrained standing postures were associated with increased ankle or foot pain for both men and women and with leg or calf pain for women, compared with standing with freedom to sit at will. CONCLUSIONS: Freedom to sit at work may prevent lower-extremity pain. The effects of specific sitting and standing postures on cartilage, muscle, and the cardiovascular system may help explain discomfort in the lower extremities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".