Risk Factors for the Development of Low Back Pain in Adolescence
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
A previous history and earlier onset of low back pain are associated with chronic low back pain in adults, implying that prevention in adolescence may have a positive impact in adulthood. The study objectives were to determine the incidence of low back pain in a cohort of adolescents and to ascertain risk factors. A cohort of 502 high school students in Montreal, Canada, was evaluated during 1995-1996 at three separate times, 6 months apart. The outcome was low back pain occurrence at a frequency of at least once a week in the previous 6 months. Of the 377 adolescents who did not complain of low back pain at the initial evaluation, 65 developed low back pain over the year (cumulative incidence, 17 percent). Risk factors associated with development of low back pain were high growth (odds ratio = 3.09; 95 percent confidence interval (CI): 1.53, 6.01), smoking (odds ratio = 2.20; 95% CI: 1.38, 3.50), tight quadriceps femoris (odds ratio = 1.02; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.05), tight hamstrings (odds ratio = 1.04; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.06), and working during the school year (odds ratio = 1.33; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.71). Modifying such risk factors as smoking and poor leg flexibility may potentially serve to prevent the development of low back pain in adolescents.
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 | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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