MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113059997 · doi:10.3233/oer-2006-63-405

Predicting 3D cumulative L4/L5 spine loads using heart rate determined physical activity level

2007· article· en· W2113059997 on OpenAlexaff
Nadia R. Azar, David M. Andrews, Jack P. Callaghan

Bibliographic record

VenueOccupational Ergonomics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCumulative distribution functionStatisticsCumulative doseCompression (physics)MathematicsAnalysis of varianceRegression analysisHeart rateSimulationComputer scienceMedicineProbability density functionMaterials scienceNuclear medicineBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to predict 3D cumulative L4/L5 spine loads and moments incurred during non-occupational tasks, from heart rate determined physical activity level (HR-PAL). Twelve subjects were videotaped while performing activities in their own homes. HR was continuously recorded during video collection and was subsequently used to calculate the PAL over the course of the 2-hour collection session. Simple regression revealed that between 76% and 82% of the variance in 3 of the 13 cumulative load measures studied (cumulative compression force and cumulative flexion and right axial twist moments) was accounted for by HR-PAL. Four additional cumulative output variables approached statistical significance. Cumulative compression force was the best predicted of all measures studied. Predicted and actual loads were not different from each other for all significant load measures. This initial study suggests that the use of heart rate for predicting cumulative compression shows potential as a simple method to track extended periods of cumulative exposure. Future work is planned to test this method in a number of industrial settings.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOccupational ErgonomicsSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207