A Cross-Sectional Study Comparing Pain and Disability Levels in Patients With Low Back Pain With and Without Transitional Lumbosacral Vertebrae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients with transitional lumbosacral vertebrae report more pain and disability compared with patients with normal lumbar vertebrae. METHODS: Radiographic and questionnaire data were collected from 353 patients with low back pain. Back pain severity was measured using 2 scales: one for pain over the entire episode and the other for pain during the previous week. All patients completed the Revised Oswestry Disability Questionnaire before radiography was performed. Patients were divided into 2 groups: those with and those without a transitional lumbosacral vertebra. Differences between patient groups were investigated using the unpaired t test. Multiple linear regression analysis was applied to investigate the effect of the transitional lumbosacral vertebrae on pain and disability controlling for the effects of age and sex. RESULTS: Forty-three patients (12.2%) had a transitional lumbosacral vertebra. There were no differences in pain or disability levels between the 2 groups on any of the pain scales or Revised Oswestry subscales. Older patients reported significantly more pain (P = .039) and disability (P = .002) than younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of a transitional lumbosacral vertebra in this group of patients was not related to an increased level of reported low back pain or disability.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".