Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Objectives</h3> In this study we examined which factors best predict return to work for workers away from work due to acute low back pain. Based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, we distinguish between factors related to LBP, to the worker, to the job and to the psychosocial environment that influence duration of an episode of being off work. We updated a previous review because of advances in the field. <h3>Methods</h3> PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched up to March 2011. Quality of the studies was assessed on 19 methodological items. Levels of evidence will be determined and results will be pooled if possible. <h3>Results</h3> 4947 titles and abstracts were retrieved and after screening of title abstract and papers for inclusion and exclusion criteria, 28 relevant publications from 25 studies were identified. Two studies that were selected in the previous review were excluded after contact with the authors and due to stricter criteria. Studies were from: Belgium: 2, The Netherlands: 7, USA: 10, Canada: 3, Norway: 2, and Greece: 1. After initial disagreement (overall ICC=0.63) consensus was reached on quality. The average quality of studies was 12.21 with a minimum score of 6 and a maximum score of 16. Approximately 220 factors were considered in these studies. Preliminary analysis shows that recovery expectations, radiating pain, disability and pain might be important factors. <h3>Conclusions</h3> The review raises the issue of more theory based/biological plausible studies. At the conference we will present pooled results and feedback from stakeholders on relevance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".