MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069250960 · doi:10.1016/j.rapm.2006.06.245

Health-Related Quality of Life in Sacroiliac Syndrome: A Comparison to Lumbosacral Radiculopathy

2006· article· en· W2069250960 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marc B. Cheng, F. Ferrante

Bibliographic record

VenueRegional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEtiologyPhysical therapyLumbarQuality of life (healthcare)McGill Pain QuestionnaireLumbosacral jointBack painLow back painSurgeryInternal medicineVisual analogue scaleAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study attempts to assess the intensity and quality of pain and health-related quality of life in patients with sacroiliac syndrome and to compare those constructs to patients with lumbar radiculopathy. METHODS: A retrospective review of patient records with the diagnosis of sacroiliac syndrome or lumbar radiculopathy was performed. Patients with sacroiliac syndrome were age and gender matched to patients with lumbar radiculopathy. Data from the McGill Pain Questionnaire, visual numerical pain scores, and SF-36 health-related quality of life measure (version 2) were compared between groups. RESULTS: The age of patients with a traumatic etiology for sacroiliac syndrome was lower than those with previous back surgery and "idiopathic" etiologies (P < .02). Duration of pain in patients with "idiopathic" etiology was longer in comparison to those with previous back surgery (P < .005). No statistical difference occurred between patients with sacroiliac syndrome and lumbar radiculopathy with respect to McGill pain scores, visual numerical pain scores, and SF-36 health-related quality of life measure. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest the following: (1) no true difference exists in the health-related quality of life or pain scores/descriptors between patients with SI syndrome or lumbar radiculopathy, or (2) the presence of comorbid spinal conditions confounds the ability of the SF-36 to detect disparities in health-related quality of life among differing etiologies of low-back pain, despite the use of rigorous diagnostic criteria, and/or (3) other factors besides the diagnostic categories of low-back pain (e.g., functional capability, psychological stress) may be primary determinants of health-related quality of life. To our knowledge, no other study has attempted to use the SF-36 to detect differences in health-related quality of life among patients with different spinal diagnoses.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRegional Anesthesia & Pain MedicineSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207