MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170807769 · doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2015.04.016

Do Muscle Characteristics on Lumbar Spine Magnetic Resonance Imaging or Computed Tomography Predict Future Low Back Pain, Physical Function, or Performance? A Systematic Review

2015· review· en· W2170807769 on OpenAlex
Pradeep Suri, Adrielle L. Fry, Alfred Gellhorn

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePM&R · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVA Puget Sound Health Care System
KeywordsMedicineLow back painMagnetic resonance imagingLumbarMultifidus musclePhysical therapyErector spinae musclesPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPopulationObservational studyCohort studyRadiologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether lumbar muscle characteristics on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) can inform clinicians as to the course of future low back pain (LBP), functional limitations, or physical performance, in adults with or without LBP. TYPE: Systematic review. LITERATURE REVIEW: We searched PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL through October 2014 for articles published in English in which authors assessed lumbar muscle characteristics on conventional MRI/CT as predictors of future LBP, functional limitations, or physical performance in adults. Studies with only postsurgical subjects were excluded. Our search identified 3554 articles, of which 6 observational cohort studies were included in the final review. METHODOLOGY: We used the Newcastle Ottawa Scale to evaluate potential bias. Data were extracted on study design, study population, sample size, participant characteristics, details of MRI/CT assessments, interventions, study outcomes, analysis methods, and study results. Because of heterogeneity between studies, we conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis. SYNTHESIS: Among high-quality studies, there was limited evidence that, for individuals with or without LBP, greater MRI-detected multifidus cross-sectional area at L5-S1 predicted greater LBP intensity at 1-year follow-up, lesser erector spinae fat infiltration (FI) at L5-S1 predicted greater LBP intensity at 15-year follow-up, and greater erector spinae side-to-side FI asymmetry at L3-L4 predicted lower LBP frequency at 15-year follow-up; however, there was also limited evidence that all other MRI-detected paraspinal muscle characteristics examined were not predictive of LBP incidence, prevalence, frequency, or intensity at follow-up durations ranging from 1 to 15 years. There was limited evidence that greater CT-detected trunk muscle FI predicted worse physical performance in older adults at 3-year follow-up, but that trunk muscle cross-sectional area did not. CONCLUSION: Few lumbar muscle characteristics have limited evidence for an association with future LBP and physical performance outcomes, and the vast majority have limited evidence for having no association with such outcomes.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.273 · 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