Spine school for patients with low back pain: interdisciplinary approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze and evaluate an interdisciplinary educational treatment - Spine School. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: The Interdisciplinary Spine School was useful for improvement in some domains of quality of life of people with low back pain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".