Association Between Obesity and Functional Status in Patients With Spine Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional study of 15,974 patients with spine disease from 26 members of the National Spine Network. OBJECTIVES: To use functional status measures and clinical parameters to evaluate the association between obesity and health status among patients with spine conditions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: With 22.5% of Americans overweight, obesity is a significant health concern. However, the functional impact caused by obesity in spine patients remains unknown. METHODS: Functional status was measured on 15,974 patients on an initial visit using a general physical health measure (SF-36 Physical Component Summary score) and a disease-specific measure (Oswestry Disability Index). Obesity was measured using body mass index (kg/m2). Patients were categorized into four groups according to body mass index: normal range (<25.0 kg/m2, n = 5732), Grade 1 obesity (25.0-29.9 kg/m2, n = 5845), Grade 2 obesity (30.0-39.9 kg/m2, n = 3836), and Grade 3 obesity (>/=40.0 kg/m2, n = 561). The associations between SF-36 Physical Component Summary and Oswestry Disability Index scores and body mass index were evaluated in a multivariate linear regression model. Clinical presentation data were derived from patient and clinician reports and were compared across body mass index categories. RESULTS: In the four obesity categories, the PCS scores were 32.6 (normal range body mass index), 30.8 (Grade 1), 28.2 (Grade 2), and 25.9 (Grade 3) (P < 0.001). The SF-36 Physical Component Summary score of the general U.S. population is 50.0. The Oswestry Disability Index scores across the four body mass index groups were 39.0, 41.6, 46.6, and 52.2, respectively (P < 0.001). Compared with nonobese patients, obese patients were more likely to have radicular pain and neurologic signs (P < 0.01). Furthermore, obese patients had more comorbidities and were more likely to be receiving worker's compensation. After adjusting for clinical and demographic factors, each increased level of obesity was associated with a 1-1.5-point worsening in both the SF-36 Physical Component Summary and Oswestry Disability Index scales (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: General and disease-specific functional health status was significantly worse for patients with a higher body mass index. Obese patients also displayed more severe pain symptoms than nonobese spine patients.
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) | 0.001 | 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".