Validation of an Adaptation of the Stress Process Model for Predicting Low Back Pain Related Long-term Disability Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Twelve-month cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to examine the ability of an adaptation of the stress process model to predict different outcomes among low back pain (LBP) sufferers. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Recently, the stress process model was adapted and was shown to be useful to partially explain long-term disability related to low back pain, an important occupational health problem. METHODS: French-speaking compensated workers on sick leave because of subacute common LBP (N=439) completed a questionnaire including the adapted stress process model's factors: life events and appraisal, cognitive appraisal of LBP, emotional distress, avoidance coping strategies, and functional disability. Six and 12 months later, participants gave information about their work status, number of days of absence, and functional disability. Regression analyses were performed to identify significant predictive factors of these outcomes. Pain intensity, fear of work, gender, and presence of pain radiating below the knee were used as control variables. RESULTS: Number of days of absence, functional disability, and absence from work were predicted at 6 and 12 months by cognitive appraisal of LBP and emotional distress. Functional disability was predicted in addition by functional disability at study entry (T1). When the control variables were considered, number of days of absence was predicted at 6 months by cognitive appraisal, fear of work, and being a male, and, in addition, by emotional distress at 12 months. Functional disability was predicted by functional disability t1, emotional distress, cognitive appraisal of LBP, and fear of work at 6 months, and by the same factors and variables at 12 months, except for functional disability t1. Regarding absence from work, it was predicted at 6 months by fear of work and being a male, and at 12 months by cognitive appraisal of LBP and fear of work. CONCLUSION: In association with fear of work, 2 factors from the adapted stress process model are significantly useful for predicting LBP related long-term disability outcomes and could be targeted by preventive interventions.
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 | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".