Three-Dimensional Motion Patterns During Active Bending in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: The three-dimensional motion patterns of chronic low back pain (LBP) patients were studied during active motions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the motion patterns of coupling and asymmetry in chronic LBP patients differ from those in the normal population according to previous literature. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There exists little data that correlates vertebral motion with LBP symptoms despite extensive research. Several studies have suggested that patterns of motion are sensitive indicators of spinal pathology, including coupled motion patterns and asymmetry of motion. METHODS: In this study, 34 chronic LBP patients enrolled for an external fixation test performed active bending maneuvers, during which the three-dimensional intervertebral motions were measured continuously with an optoelectronic camera via markers attached to the percutaneous transpedicular screws. If a solid connection between each marker carrier and vertebrae was verified, the three-dimensional rotations of the vertebrae were analyzed with special reference to motion asymmetries and patterns of coupled motion. All data were compared to the normal values in the literature since the methodology is not possible in asymptomatic control subjects. RESULTS: Seven patients were removed from the analysis because of a loose screw-bone interface. In the remaining patients, three distinct patterns of motion were observed in each direction of movement. Significant differences in the extension-flexion ratio, the lateral bending asymmetry, and the coupled axial rotation-lateral bending ratio were found between the chronic LBP group and the normal literature values. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic LBP patients exhibited motion patterns altered from those of the normal population. Specific differences were observed in coupled axial rotation during lateral bending movement, in the symmetry between flexion and extension, and in the symmetry be tween right and left lateral bending.
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".