Building a different future: Constructing hope and peace in Syrian dental education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: Low back pain (LBP) is the most common orthopedic problem worldwide and is known to aff ect both younger and older adults. Th e stressful and time consuming curriculum of medical students predisposes them to this problem. Few statistics are available on prevalence rates of LBP among medical students in India. Th is study assesses the prevalence and risk factors of LBP in students of a medical college in Delhi. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out in a medical college in Delhi. Th e study subjects (n = 160; 100% participation) were selected via stratifi ed random sampling from all undergraduate medical students (aged 17-25 years). A validated questionnaire was used to collect the data. Results: Th e overall prevalence of LBP among the students over the past one year was 47.5% (n = 76) with a prevalence of 32.5% at the time of data collection. Prevalence among males and females was 45.3% and 50%, respectively. Signifi cant associations were found between LBP in the past year and coff ee drinking (Regular = 57%, Occasional = 38.9%, Never = 65.2%, χ2 = 7.24, P = 0.02), body posture (Normal = 32.6%, Abnormal = 75%, χ2 = 18.97, P < 0.001), place of study (Study table = 33.8%, Bed = 58.6, Both = 61.5% χ2 = 10.51, P = 0.01), family history of LBP (Present = 75%, Absent = 38.3%, χ2 = 16.17, P < 0.001) and carrying backpacks (Regular = 50%, Occasional = 33%, Never = 0%, χ2 = 16.17, P < 0.001). Th e mean scores of depression (2.7 vs. 1.6), anxiety (3.5 vs 1.9), and monotonous work (3.9 vs. 1.8) were found to be signifi cantly higher in group with LBP than in the non-LBP group. However, no association with LBP was seen for weight lift ing, watching television/working on computers, driving, wearing heels, or body mass index. Discussion: Th e high prevalence of LBP among medical students and its association with poor study habits, lifestyle habits, and psychological factors highlight a need for life skills training, education, counseling, and restructuring of the medical curriculum.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".