A Health Production Function for Persons With Back Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Study Design. A retrospective, population-based analysis. Objectives. To analyze the relation between health outcomes and resources used by persons with back problems in an everyday setting. Summary of Background Data. The Canadian Community Health Survey (2000) contains self-reported variables on change in health status, use of health resources, and socioeconomic characteristics of a population sample. Methods. We use a health production function approach, in which we explore the association between change in health status and a series of utilization variables for persons with a single diagnosis of back pain using a regression equation. The independent variables include use of family physicians, chiropractors, physiotherapists, and exercise. Results. Change in health status was negatively and significantly associated with family practice, chiropractic, and physiotherapy visits and positively associated with physical activity. The magnitudes of the results were small. Conclusions. Our results indicate that exercise is an important factor in back problems, while persons who seek formal care do not improve. The Canadian Community Health Survey 2000 was used to analyze the association between self-reported changes in health states over 1 year for persons with a back problem as the only diagnosis and the use of various types of resources, formal and informal, in an everyday setting. Our results showed a small positive association with physical activity and a small negative association with the use of formal health services.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".