Is Typing Speed Proportional to the Severity of Pain in Keyboard Workers with Work-related Upper Limb Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate if typing speed is proportional to the severity of pain in keyboard workers with work-related upper limb disorder (WRULD). DESIGN: Standardized functional typing test with participants scoring pain before and after typing; calculation of typing speed. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-nine patients and six controls. SETTING: Tertiary hospital centre for hand and upper limb pain. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain (VAS 0-10) and calculation of typing speed as words per minute. RESULTS: THREE SUBGROUPS OF PATIENTS WERE FOUND BASED ON THEIR TYPING SPEED: fast, slow and intermediate. Two-tailed student T-test with P level at 0.05 was used for evaluation. The typing speeds were significantly different between all three patient groups (P < 0.05). The typing speed was significantly faster in the fastest patient group than in the control group (P = 0.04) and the slow and middle groups (P = < 0.0001). The pain before typing was highest in the 'slow' group, in both hands but this difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Typing speed is not proportional to the severity of pain in keyboard workers with WRULD. Patients with statistically significant slower or faster typing speeds do not have statistically different levels of 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".