MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052565073 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3181bd9e3b

Measuring Psychosocial Variables in Patients With (Sub) Acute Low Back Pain Complaints, at Risk for Chronicity

2010· article· en· W2052565073 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hans Heneweer, Nienke J. van Woudenberg, Frank van Genderen, Luc Vanhees, Harriët Wittink

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychosocialLow back painPhysical therapyBack painPsychiatryAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: A validation study of the Acute Low Back Pain Screening Questionnaire Dutch Language Version (ALBPSQ-DLV). OBJECTIVE: To determine internal consistency, construct and convergent validity of the ALBPSQ-DLV in a population of patients with (sub) acute low back pain (LBP) referred to primary care physical therapy in The Netherlands. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Viewing LBP as a multifactorial biopsychosocial syndrome enhances the need for validating instruments for screening psychosocial variables in patients with LBP. The ALBPSQ has been specifically constructed as a self-administered screening instrument, based on variables that have been suggested as a risk factor in the literature. METHODS: A total of 69 patients with (sub) acute LBP were recruited. Internal consistency of the ALBPSQ-DLV was determined by calculating Cronbach alpha. Construct validity was determined by applying exploratory factor analysis. Convergent validity was assessed by calculating Pearson's correlation coefficients between domains of ALBPSQ-DLV and Dutch language versions of the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, Pain Coping Inventory, Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale, and the Visual Analogue Scale of pain intensity. RESULTS: Internal consistency of the ALBPSQ-DLV was 0.81. Values of the various subscales ranged between 0.48 and 0.88. Convergent validity was confirmed by moderate to good correlation coefficients (P = 0.01) between the scores on the subscales and the constructs of pain, disability, fear-avoidance beliefs, kinesiophobia, and coping (r = 0.38-0.64). Exploratory factor analysis, suppressing absolute values less than 0.40, revealed components which were in agreement with the various domains of the original ALBPSQ. CONCLUSION: The internal consistency and both construct and convergent validity of the ALBPSQ-DLV are well established in a Dutch population of 69 patients with (sub) acute nonspecific LBP referred to primary care physical therapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations29
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207