MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043240443 · doi:10.2118/73865-ms

Low Back Pain: An on the Job Occupational Health Issue

2002· article· en· W2043240443 on OpenAlexaff
Jalees Razavi, Jim C. Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenueAll Days · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLow back painExacerbationMedicineDiseaseBack painPhysical therapyHealth carePhysical medicine and rehabilitationAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Low back pain (LBP) is the commonest cause of disability in persons under 46 years of age.1 LBP remains one of the most difficult challenges that face health care providers, as there are 9 important factors that compound the ability to manage, minimize the cost and predict its outcome: Low back pain is a symptom and not a disease yet it remains the commonest used term to describe the diagnosis.2Low back pain can be caused due to injury or disease process.2There are many diseases in systems other than musculo-skeletal systems that cause LBP.2Most types of back pain closely mimic each other.2Part of the problem is due to the fact that the region of the low back is extremely complex, both anatomically and functionally.3Another difficulty is the inability to objectively define a measurement for pain. 3A large part of the problem is the cultural need to medicalize LBP, linking the symptoms to radiological abnormalities requested by physicians. 2Physicians' insufficient understanding of the topic and its management leading to patient advocacy.2,3Poor medical results of occupationally related LBP in institutions unprepared to deal with this problem.2,3 Many psychological factors are thought to be causative in development, exacerbation and/or maintenance of chronic LBP.4

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0040.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.273 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAll DaysSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207