Reliability of a Measure of Total Lumbar Spine Range of Motion in Individuals with Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measuring lumbar spine range of motion (ROM) using multiple movements is impractical for clinical research, because finding statistically significant effects requires a large proportion of subjects to present with the same impairment. The purpose of this study was to develop a single measure representing the total available lumbar ROM. Twenty participants with low back pain performed three series of eight lumbar spine movements, in each of two sessions. For each series, an ellipse and a cubic spline were fit to the end-range positions, measured based on the position of the twelfth thoracic vertebra in the transverse plane of the sacrum. The area of each shape provides a measure of the total available ROM, whereas their center reflects the movements' symmetry. Using generalizability theory, the index of dependability for the area and anterior-posterior center position was found to be 0.90, but was slightly lower for the mediolateral center position. Slightly better values were achieved using the spline-fitting approach. Further analysis also indicated that excellent reliability, and acceptable minimal detectable change values, would be achieved with a single testing session. These data indicate that the proposed measure provides a reliable and easily interpretable measure of total lumbar spine ROM.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".