Risk Factors Associated With Back Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study of 963 College Students
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
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate standard measures of health behavior for association with back pain among college students using data from the standardized National College Health Assessment survey. This investigation evaluated potential risk factors among a population of students at a Colorado university. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 963 survey results that were assessed using backward selection logistic regression techniques to evaluate the associations between common college-life health behaviors and back pain occurrence within the past school year. RESULTS: Thirty-eight percent of college students surveyed reported having back pain within the past school year. Investigators found that univariate associations included multiple domains, but only psychosocial factors remained statistically significant in a final regression model and were associated with back pain. Feeling chronically fatigued (odds ratio, 3.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-13.86) and being in an emotionally abusive relationship (odds ratio, 2.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.69-4.57) were the factors most strongly associated with back pain in the final model. CONCLUSIONS: Psychosocial factors were identified to be associated with back pain. The prevalence of back pain among this younger population is of significant concern and warrants further investigation to identify contributing factors that may help in the development of interventions to reduce the epidemic of back pain within college students and lessen the burden upon college health providers.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it