MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125618886 · doi:10.2522/ptj.20120464

Exercise for Prevention of Recurrences of Nonspecific Low Back Pain

2013· review· en· W2125618886 on OpenAlexaff
Luciana Macedo, Geoff Bostick, Christopher G. Maher

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Therapy · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical therapyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationLow back painAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low back pain (LBP) is highly prevalent2 and a common reason for presentation to primary care. 3 The direct and indirect costs associated with this condition are enormous and represent a significant economic burden to health care systems. The prognosis of those with acute LBP is generally positive, with approximately 72% recovering by 1 year. 4 For those who recover, recurrences within the next 12 months following recovery are common. 5,6 It has been well-established that nonspecific LBP is often recurrent and that 24% to 87% of those who recover from an episode of LBP will have a recurrence within 1 year. 5‐8 A theme that is current among clinicians and researchers is the difficulty in defining a recurrence of LBP. Various clinicians and researchers

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations28
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical TherapySame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207