Outcome of subacute low back pain: influence of patients' and rheumatologists' characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the outcome of subacute low back pain, to identify the characteristics of patients and physicians which were related to outcome and to evaluate the influence of rheumatologists' beliefs about back pain on their following the guidelines for physical and occupational activity. DESIGN: a longitudinal descriptive survey. SETTING: a secondary care practice in France. PARTICIPANTS: 266 rheumatologists; 440 patients with subacute low back pain. OUTCOME MEASURES: the main outcome measure was persistence of back pain 3 months after baseline evaluation. A self-administered questionnaire for physicians assessed attitudes and beliefs about back pain [Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ)], and one for patients assessed pain, perceived handicap and disability (Quebec Scale), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety Depression Questionnaire), and beliefs about back pain (FABQ). RESULTS: Forty per cent of patients had persistent low back pain at 3 months; 5.5% of these had sciatica. A total of 10% of rheumatologists and 68% of patients at baseline had a high FABQ physical score (phys; >14). Determinants of outcomes were work-related back pain [odds ratio (OR) = 3.37; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-5.17], anxiety (OR = 2.41; 95% CI 1.44-4.09), sex (female OR = 2.03; 95% CI 1.30-3.18) and patients' beliefs about back pain at work (OR = 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.05). Physicians with high FABQ physical scores were less likely to follow guidelines on prescribing rest and occupational activity for back pain. CONCLUSION: Back pain commonly persists 3 months later in patients with subacute low back pain. Patients and rheumatologists still have negative beliefs about back pain. Rheumatologists' beliefs influence their following guidelines on physical and occupational activities. National education programmes about low back pain are needed in France.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".