MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094607279 · doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2012.09.777

Poster 154 Exploration of the Walking Participation‐to‐Capacity Ratio in Persons with Neurogenic Claudication, Back Pain, or Asymptomatic Volunteers

2012· article· en· W2094607279 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrew J. Haig, Siera Goodnight, Danielle Sandella, Christy Tomkins‐Lane, Karen Yamakawa

Bibliographic record

VenuePM&R · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsymptomaticPhysical therapyClaudicationNeurogenic claudicationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationBack painAlternative medicineSurgeryArterial diseaseLumbarPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A. J. Haig, Ownership or partnership: Haig et al., Consulting LLC; Non-remunerative positions of influence, The International Rehabilitation Forum; The International Society for Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine; Non-remunerative positions of influence; The University of Michigan. While reversal of pathophysiology and improvement in capacity are important intermediate goals of many medical, surgical, and rehabilitation interventions, the improvement of actual participation in the community is the ultimate goal for most patients. Activity monitors can now measure daily walking participation. Since the principal impairment from neurogenic claudication is walking the current study hopes to examine factors that impact the ratio of walking participation:capacity (P:C) in that population and control groups. Variation in P:C ratio may disclose barriers to full participation that are psychological or social. Prospective, controlled, NIH-funded trial. University clinic. Persons age 50-85 with clinician-diagnosed mechanical back pain, neurogenic claudication, and asymptomatic volunteers. 6-minute walk test (capacity), 7 day activity monitor (participation), masked physical examination, multiple standardized surveys. Relationship of variables to the P:C ratio, defined as (average daily steps on activity monitor )/( steps taken during the 6 minute walk test). 29 claudicants, 27 mechanical back pain and 33 asymptomatic volunteers completed the trial, with P:C ratios of 9.7 (s.d. 7.3), 9.3 (s.d. 3.9) and 10.7 (s.d. 5.6), respectively. The P:C ratio did not relate (P>.05) to medical issues (diagnosis, visual analog pain, Pain Disability Index, McGill, obesity, age, sex), psychosocial issues (education, Tampa kinesiphobia scale, CESD Depression scale) or any SF-36 quality of life component. Surprisingly this extensive evaluation did not find factors that relate to optimization or diminution of participation, given a certain level of disability. In a larger group, in other populations, or in other diseases, parameters that alter the P:C ratio might help guide rehabilitation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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