Validity and reliability of the Spineangel <sup>®</sup> lumbo-pelvic postural monitor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: to determine the reliability and the concurrent validity of the Spineangel lumbo-pelvic postural monitoring device. METHODS: the dynamic lumbo-pelvic posture of 25 participants was simultaneously monitored by the Spineangel and Fastrak devices. Participants performed six different functional tasks in random order. Within-task, within-session and between-day intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC(3,1), ICC(3,5), ICC(2,5), respectively) reliability were calculated for Spineangel measurements. Concurrent validity of the Spineangel was assessed by means of a Bland and Altman plot and by means of Pearson's correlation coefficient and paired t-test. RESULTS: within-task, within-session and between-day ICC for the Spineangel were found to be excellent (>0.93). The Spineangel and Fastrak pelvic measurements were found to have a good correlation (R = 0.77). CONCLUSION: the Spineangel is a reliable and valid device for monitoring general lumbo-pelvic movements when clipped on the belt or waistband of workers' clothing during various occupational activities. PRACTITIONER SUMMARY: The Spineangel can be used for assessing lumbo-pelvic posture during work or daily-life activities. This device was found to provide reliable and valid measurements for lumbo-pelvic movements. Further research is required to determine whether the use of this device is clinically relevant for patients presenting with low 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 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".