Pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain: Prevalence, persistence, risk factors and management implications
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Symphysis pubis dysfunction (SPD)/Pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain (PLPP) is a common condition with a prevalence range of 14–85% ( Larsen et al, 1999 ; Orlikowski et al, 2006 ). In the literature, a number of terms and definitions have been employed by professionals from different countries to describe this condition. Women report a wide range of symptoms and there is a requirement for a careful assessment. The goal of this paper has been to raise awareness of the pain and activity limitations reported by some women during pregnancy and postpartum. The clinical presentation and women's experiences are described. The risk factors predisposing women to SPD/PLPP both during pregnancy and postpartum are presented. There is a requirement to meet the expectations of women with SPD/PLPP. Women need to be assessed, be able to tell their story, have the condition explained, and be involved in the management of their symptoms and activity limitations. Midwives play a key role in assessing for SPD/PLPP, so this paper proposes a five-step plan to guide midwives and doctors in the management of this condition.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it