MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087732407 · doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2012.04.013

Influence of Directional Preference on Two Clinical Dichotomies: Acute Versus Chronic Pain and Axial Low Back Pain Versus Sciatica

2012· article· en· W2087732407 on OpenAlexaff
Ronald Donelson, Audrey Long, Kevin F. Spratt, Tak Fung

Bibliographic record

VenuePM&R · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyLow back painSciaticaDepression (economics)Chronic painPhysical medicine and rehabilitationBack painLumbarSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether outcomes from treatment determined by subjects' directional preference (ie, reduction in back and/or leg pain, by performing a single direction of repeated end-range lumbar movement) would vary based on pain duration, location, or neurologic status. DESIGN: A secondary analysis of data from a multicenter randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Eleven physical therapy departments or clinics in 5 countries, with referrals for both acute and chronic low back pain. SUBJECTS: Seventy-one of 80 subjects with acute to chronic low back pain, and with and without radicular leg pain, and with or without mild neurologic deficit, were found at baseline to have a directional preference and were then treated with directional exercises that matched their directional preference. METHODS: All of the subjects were treated for 2 weeks with directional exercises and compatible posture modifications. Independent variables were pain duration, pain location, and neurologic status. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Primary measures were back and leg pain intensity and function (Roland Morris Disability Questionnare). Secondary measures were activity interference, medication use, depression (Beck Depression Inventory), and a self-report of improvement. RESULTS: The subjects significantly improved their back and leg pain intensity, disability, and all secondary outcome measures, but pain duration, location, and neurologic status classification did not predict treatment responsiveness. Across all pain duration categories, 91%-100% either improved or resolved completely. There also was significant improvement across all pain location and neurologic status categories, with no significant differences across the outcome variables. CONCLUSIONS: In subjects found to have a directional preference who then treated themselves with matching directional exercises, neither pain duration nor pain location and neurologic status predicted their uniformly good-to-excellent outcomes.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePM&RSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207