MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106907756

Low back pain: prevalence and risk factors in an industrial setting.

2001· article· en· W2106907756 on OpenAlexaffabout
P Lee, A Helewa, Charlie H. Goldsmith, H A Smythe, Larry Stitt

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLogistic regressionLow back painPhysical therapyWeaknessRisk factorBack painTest (biology)Abdominal painCross-sectional studyInternal medicineSurgeryAlternative medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine various factors associated with low back pain (LBP) in an industrial setting. METHODS: A cross sectional study was carried out among 1,562 employees of a large utilities corporation in Ontario using a self-administered questionnaire. Abdominal muscle strength was measured using a modified sphygmomanometer. Statistical analysis was carried out with Student's t test, chi-square test, and logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Among 1,302 male employees the lifetime and point prevalence of LBP were 60% and 11%, respectively. Low back pain was significantly more prevalent among married employees, with more physically demanding jobs, regular lifting, poor general health, and past major illness. Abdominal muscle weakness was associated with current LBP. The mean time lost from work due to LBP over 5 years was 17 days. Sedentary workers developing LBP were more likely to require hospital admission. CONCLUSION: This study confirms the high prevalence of LBP in industry and identifies several risk factors.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations95
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207