MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015609019 · doi:10.1136/oem.2007.034801

Developing common metrics of mechanical exposures across aetiological studies of low back pain in working populations for use in meta-analysis

2007· article· en· W2015609019 on OpenAlexaff
Lauren E. Griffith, Richard Wells, Harry S. Shannon, Stephen D. Walter, Donald C. Cole, Sheilah Hogg‐Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueOccupational and Environmental Medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & HealthUniversity of TorontoUniversity of WaterlooMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEtiologyMeta-analysisMedicinePhysical therapyEnvironmental healthPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: One of the challenges of conducting meta-analyses on the relationship between workplace mechanical exposures and low back pain is that mechanical exposures are reported in a wide variety of ways. We aimed to develop common metrics to apply in the translation of literature-based workplace mechanical exposures for use in meta-analyses, and to test the metrics' measurement properties. METHODS: We developed a set of 7-point scales to capture the intensity of important aspects of mechanical exposures that may be related to the development of low back pain in workers. The scales represented three dimensions of mechanical exposures at work: (1) trunk posture, (2) weight lifted or force exerted and (3) spinal loading, and estimated both peak and cumulative loads. Measurement properties of the scales were tested through a survey of experts in biomechanics and ergonomics who were asked to rate literature-based workplace exposure definitions using the scales and provide estimates of their confidence in their ratings. RESULTS: For each dimension the ratings for peak loads tended to be higher than the cumulative load ratings. The inter-rater reliability for the scales ranged from 0.3 to 0.5; we would need to average the ratings of at least four expert raters to have an acceptable level of reliability (>0.7). Inter-expert reliability was positively related to the experts' level of confidence in their ratings. In most cases the ranking of intensity ratings from the experts matched the ranking of exposure intensity from the original articles. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into estimating the intensity of literature-based mechanical exposure metrics using a common set of scales which can be applied across epidemiologic studies. These metrics may be useful to quantify the relationship between workplace mechanical exposure and low back pain in a systematic review and meta-analysis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.371
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.602
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3710.602
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.045
Bibliometrics0.0280.027
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0050.008
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.249
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.164 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations14
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOccupational and Environmental MedicineSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207