Comparative analysis of low-back loading on chiropractors using various workstation table heights and performing various tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is epidemiologic evidence that chiropractors are a high-risk group for low-back disorders. However, to date there are no known biomechanical studies to determine whether their workstations may be a contributing factor. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether chiropractors' workstation table height or the tasks they perform make them susceptible to low-back strain. As well as investigating low-back strain, a screening was performed to determine whether chiropractors' upper extremities were at risk for undue strain as workstation table height was varied. STUDY DESIGN: Experimental pilot study. SETTING: A university ergonomic laboratory. METHODS: An adjustable manipulation table was set at 3 different heights: 465 mm, 665 mm and 845 mm. Each of the 7 volunteer chiropractors were fitted with a triaxial electrogoniometer and were videotaped and photographed for analysis while performing spinal manipulation to the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine of a volunteer patient at each workstation table height. Two biomechanical models, one static and one dynamic, were used to record the dependent variables. A screening of various upper extremity variables was also performed with the static model. RESULTS: For the subjects under study, a significant difference was found for the variables maximum sagittal flexion, disk compression force, and ligament strain as table height was varied. For the lumbar and thoracic manipulation tasks, the medium table height (655 mm) was found to create the least low-back strain. For the cervical manipulation task, the high table height (845 mm) was found to be the least straining on the low-back. The low height table (465 mm) was the most straining for all tasks. Upper extremities were not significantly affected by changes to table height. Significant differences were found for the task performed for axial rotational velocity, disk compression force, ligament strain, maximum sagittal flexion, dominant (right) elbow moment, and dominant (right) shoulder moment variables. There was no significant interaction between table height and task performed. CONCLUSION: Workstation table height was found to have a significant effect on low-back load of subjects under study. The results of this study demonstrate an overall unacceptably high amount of sagittal flexion, ligament strain, and disk compression force on the chiropractor subjects in the tasks performed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".