The disabling role of fluctuations in physical activity in patients with chronic low back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) often report a disabling decrease in their activity level due to pain. The nature of the association between disability, activity, and pain over time is however, unclear. An intriguing issue here is whether a high level of pain-related disability is associated with a low activity level or are changes in the level of activity over time pain provoking and thus more disabling? The objectives of this study were to investigate associations between disability, pain intensity, pain-related fear, and characteristics of physical activity in patients with CLBP. A total of 42 patients with CLBP were recruited from the Pain Clinic of the Maastricht University Hospital. Each pain patient carried an electronic diary for one week, in which questions about current pain intensity, and the level of physical activity were completed at 8 moments a day. Disability was scored by the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS), Fear of movement by the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK). To explain the level of disability regression analyses were performed with disability as dependent variable and pain intensity, pain-related fear, and consecutively the level of physical activity in daily life and fluctuations in physical activity as independent variables. Results, based on 34 patients, showed that activity fluctuations (beta=0.373, p<0.05) rather than the mean activity level over time (beta=-0.052, ns) contributed significantly in explaining disability. The results are discussed in the light of current theories, previous research, and clinical implications.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".