MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Discriminative and Predictive Validity Assessment of the Quebec Task Force Classification

2002· article· en· W2052026284 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patrick Loisel, Brigitte Vachon, Jacques Lemaire, Marie‐José Durand, Stéphane Poitras, Susan Stock, Claude Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRehabilitationPhysical therapyPredictive validityLow back painLogistic regressionCohortPhysical medicine and rehabilitationDiscriminative modelConfoundingQuality of life (healthcare)Machine learningClinical psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective cohort study of workers with low back pain who had been absent from work for more than 4 weeks was conducted. OBJECTIVE: To assess the discriminative and predictive validity of the Quebec Task Force Classification for workers during the subacute phase of disability from back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The Quebec Task Force Classification was designed for clinical decision making, prognosis establishment, quality of care evaluation, and scientific research in low back pain. METHODS: For this study, 104 workers absent from work because of back pain were classified according to the first four categories of the Quebec Task Force Classification 4 weeks after their first day of work absence. They then were randomized into four treatment groups: standard care (control), clinical-rehabilitation intervention, occupational intervention, and the Sherbrooke model (a combination of the clinical-rehabilitation and occupational interventions). Functional status, pain level, and work status were assessed at baseline and after 1 year. Duration of full compensation and back-related costs were calculated over a mean follow-up period of 6.5 years. The discriminative validity of the Quebec Task Force Classification was evaluated using Kendall tau correlation coefficients. Predictive validity was evaluated using logistic regression analyses. Age, gender, comorbidities, body mass index, and treatment group were considered as potential confounders. RESULTS: Significant but low correlation coefficients were found between Quebec Task Force Classification categories and functional status scores at baseline. Subjects classified as having distal radiating pain (categories 3 and 4) at baseline were more likely to have a lower functional status, higher pain level, and no return to regular work at the 1-year follow-up evaluation. They also were more likely to accumulate more days of full compensation and to cost more after a mean follow-up period of 6.5 years. CONCLUSION: The Quebec Task Force Classification demonstrated good predictive ability by discriminating between subjects with and those without distal radiating pain.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.686
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.281 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations75
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207