Spine school for patients with low back pain: interdisciplinary approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<sec><title>OBJECTIVE:</title><p> To analyze and evaluate an interdisciplinary educational treatment - Spine School.</p></sec><sec><title>METHODS:</title><p> This study is a non-controlled clinical trial. Twenty one individuals (19 women) aged 27-74 years diagnosed with chronic low back pain were enrolled and followed-up by a rheumatologist and an orthopedist. The evaluations used were SF36, Roland Morris, canadian occupational performance measure (COPM) and visual analogue scale (VAS) of pain that were performed before and after seven weeks of treatment.</p></sec><sec><title>RESULTS:</title><p> We found statistically significant improvements in vitality (mean 48.10 vs. 81.25) p=0.009 and limitations caused by physical aspects (mean 48.81 vs. 81.25) p=0.038 and perception of pain (mean 6.88 vs. 5.38) p=0.005. Although the results were suggestive of improvement, there were no statistical significant differences in the domains social aspects (average 70.82 vs. 92.86) p=0.078, emotional aspects (average 52.38 vs. 88.95) p=0.078, and the performance satisfaction (mean 4.94 vs. 8.24) p=0.074.</p></sec><sec><title>CONCLUSION:</title><p> The Interdisciplinary Spine School was useful for improvement in some domains of quality of life of people with low back pain.</p></sec>
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 | 0.001 | 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".