MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000073970 · doi:10.1159/000287931

Low-Back Pain: A Psychosomatic Clinical Study

2010· article· en· W2000073970 on OpenAlexaff
H.-P. Villard, J. Imbeault, Martin R. A. Duguay

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychotherapy and Psychosomatics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialPsychologyPsychiatryCompensation (psychology)Outcome (game theory)PsychosomaticsPsychosomatic medicineBack painFinancial compensationLow back painClinical psychologyPsychotherapistMedicineAlternative medicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most studies relating psychological factors to low-back pain have been done on subjects already referred to psychiatry. This study addresses 27 patients who had undergone their first lumber discoidectomy and never had any contact with psychiatry. They were submitted to a threefold assessment in order to find psychosocial criteria that could discriminate good- from bad-outcome subjects. It was found that a bad outcome was related to: a difficulty in perceiving and expressing affects, some financial compensation, high rating on pain assessment tests.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.945

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.343 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychotherapy and PsychosomaticsSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207