Physical and Psychosocial Predictors of Functional Trunk Capacity in Older Adults With and Without Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the physical and psychosocial predictors of functional trunk capacity in a group of healthy elderly individuals and a group of elderly patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). METHODS: The study was done in Canada and included 61 community-dwelling elderly individuals (29 patients with nonspecific chronic LBP and 32 healthy participants) who performed maximal trunk endurance and force tasks. Participants completed various psychologic and functional questionnaires. Sequential linear regression analyses were performed with functional capacity results (endurance and force) as dependent variables and questionnaire scores as independent variables. RESULTS: Endurance time and peak force were significantly lower in patients compared with healthy elderly individuals (all P values < .001), whereas pain-related fear of movement, pain catastrophizing, and depression levels were higher in patients than their healthy counterpart (all P values < .001). After adjusting for physical activity and disability levels (R(2) = 33.7%-50.5% in patients; R(2) = 0.1%-5.7% in healthy individuals), none of the psychologic questionnaire could explain variations observed in functional capacity in patients (R(2) changes, 4.8%-6.7%) and in healthy participants (R(2) changes, 5.2%-10.6%). CONCLUSION: Patients showed diminished functional capacity compared with healthy participants. Moreover, physical activity levels represent the most important predictors of functional capacity in elderly patients with LBP.
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".