MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Predicting Timely Recovery and Recurrence Following Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation in Patients With Compensated Low Back Pain

2005· article· en· W2024686119 on OpenAlexaffabout
Douglas P. Gross, Michele C. Battié

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRehabilitationLogistic regressionCohortPhysical therapyMultidisciplinary approachProportional hazards modelBack painHealth careLow back painCohort studyWorkers' compensationEmergency medicineSurgeryCompensation (psychology)Internal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Study Design. Historical cohort study. Objectives. We investigated factors predictive of timely and sustained recovery following multidisciplinary rehabilitation in Workers’ Compensation claimants with low back pain. Summary of Background Data. It is still unknown which factors predict better outcomes among back pain patients enrolled in intensive rehabilitation programs. Previously, few consistent predictors have been reported. Methods. We created and tested predictive models using data from clinical and administrative databases of the Alberta Workers’ Compensation Board. Predictive models were built on a cohort of subjects admitted for multidisciplinary rehabilitation in 1999 and tested on subjects admitted in 2000. Cox regression was used to evaluate days to time-loss benefit suspension and days to claim closure following admission for rehabilitation. Logistic regression was used to evaluate risk of future recurrence as judged through time-loss benefit resumption, claim reopening, or new back-related claims filing. Results. Prediction models were variable between exploratory and confirmatory stages, and few variables were found to predict consistently. The number of preadmission healthcare visits was the most robust predictor of all recovery outcomes. Recurrence rates were 18% in 1999 and 22% in 2000. A higher number of preadmission healthcare visits and more previous back-related claims were associated with higher risk of recurrence. Conclusions. The number of preadmission healthcare visits was the most robust prognostic indicator with more healthcare visits related to delayed recovery and higher risk of recurrence. Recurrence rates following successful functional restoration were consistent with the episodic and recurrent nature of low back pain. A historical cohort study was conducted of factors predicting outcome following multidisciplinary rehabilitation for claimants with back pain. More preadmission healthcare visits were the most robust indicator of delayed recovery recurrence. Recurrence rates were slightly higher than previously reported consistent with the episodic nature of back pain.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations61
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207