MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125880468 · doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2011.10.015

Is It Time to Rethink the Typical Course of Low Back Pain?

2012· article· en· W2125880468 on OpenAlexaff
Ronald Donelson, Greg McIntosh, Hamilton Hall

Bibliographic record

VenuePM&R · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChiropracticLow back painPhysical therapyBack painAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency and the characteristics of low back pain (LBP) recurrences. The research questions were as follows: (1) Are LBP recurrences common? (2) Do episodes worsen with multiple recurrences? (3) Does pain change location in any recognizable pattern during an episode? DESIGN: Single-page self-administered questionnaire. SETTING: Thirty clinical practices (primary care, physical therapy, chiropractic, and surgical spine) in North America and Europe. PATIENTS: A convenience sample of 589 respondents with LBP. There were no exclusions based on type of LBP, history of onset, or comorbidities. METHODS: The survey was distributed during patients' assessment or initial treatment at their respective clinics. The survey queried the following: (1) the severity of original versus most recent episodes based on the following: pain intensity, interference with leisure and work activities, duration of episodes, and most distal extent of pain; and (2) changes in pain location within episodes. RESULTS: In response to research question 1, a previous episode was reported by 73%; of those, 66.1% reported their first episode lasted ≤3 months, 54% reported ≥10 episodes, and 19.4% reported >50 episodes. In response to research question 2, of those with recurrences, 61.1% reported that at least one of the survey domains was worse in recent episodes (P < .01) and only 36.9% reported that they were better; 20.5% were worse in all domains, whereas 8.6% were better or the same. In response to research question 3, the pain location changed during the episode in 75.6%; of these, 63.2% reported that their pain first spread distally before retreating proximally during recovery; there was a strong trend toward those reporting worsening episodes also reporting proximal-to-distal-to-proximal changes in pain location during their episodes (r = 0.132, P < .06). CONCLUSION: Recurrent LBP episodes were common and numerous. Recurrences often worsened over time. It seems inappropriate to characterize the typical course of LBP as benign and favorable.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.011
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations41
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePM&RSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207