A Comparison of Pressure Pain Detection Thresholds in People With Chronic Low Back Pain and Volunteers Without Pain
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Palpation is often utilized in the physical examination of patients with low back pain. The purpose of this study was to compare the pressure pain detection threshold (PPDT) of people with chronic low back pain (CLBP) and subjects without pain. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Thirty female subjects with CLBP were recruited from the offices of primary care physicians and physical therapists and compared with 30 female volunteers without pain for differences in PPDT at 6 sites tested bilaterally. RESULTS: A significantly lower mean PPDT was found for all test site groups in subjects with CLBP compared with subjects without pain. A lower global PPDT was found in subjects with CLBP compared with subjects without pain (5.6 lb/cm(2) versus 6.9 lb/cm2). This also was the case for PPDT for the group of test sites unrelated to the lumbar spine (5.1 lb/cm(2) versus 6.1 lb/cm(2)) and for PPDT related to the lumbar spine (5.9 lb/cm(2) versus 8.0 lb/cm(2)). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Neurobiological or biopsychosocial influences may have contributed to the lower PPDT evident in subjects with CLBP. Subjects with CLBP demonstrated a lower global PPDT compared with subjects without pain, which should be taken into account when interpreting findings of pain or tenderness from palpation.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it