Relationships between demographic, clinical and pain variables and health‐related quality of life in patients with chronic low back pain treated with instrumented fusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to assess the relationships between demographic, clinical and pain variables and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients who had undergone instrumented spinal fusion because of chronic low back pain (CLBP). The sample comprises 101 patients (70% women, mean age 46 years) who had received surgery between 1993 and 2000. The SF-36 Health Survey was used to assess HRQOL. Pain was assessed by sensory, affective and evaluative subgroups of the Norwegian Pain Questionnaire (modified McGill Pain Questionnaire). Age, work status, number of years after surgery, physical training, other chronic conditions and affective and evaluative pain (all p < 0.05) were the most prominent factors affecting HRQOL. The highest adjusted R(2) to explain the variance was physical function (52%) and the lowest was emotional role limitations (15%). Pain, particularly affective and evaluative pain, contributed more to the explained variance of HRQOL than demographic and clinical variables.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".