Dose–response relationship between work-related cumulative postural exposure and low back pain: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence for a dose-response relationship between ROM, duration, and frequency of trunk flexion, and risk of occupational LBP. METHODS: An electronic systematic search was conducted using Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, and Scopus databases focusing on cohort and case-control studies. Studies were included if they focused on non-specific LBP and postural exposure, considering ROM, duration, or frequency of trunk flexion as independent variables. No language restriction was imposed. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies and a summary of evidence is presented. RESULTS: Eight studies were included and all were methodologically rated as high quality. The included studies yielded a total of 7023 subjects who were considered for risk analysis. Different outcome measures for postural exposure were adopted making meta-analysis difficult to perform. CONCLUSIONS: We could not find a clear dose-response relationship for work posture exposures and LBP. Limited evidence was found for ROM and duration of sustained flexed posture as risk factor for LBP. We found no evidence for frequency of trunk flexion as a risk factor for LBP.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".