Whole Body Vibration and Low Back Disorder among Saskatchewan Farmers: A Prospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Authors : Samuel Kwaku Essien, Catherine Trask, Niels Koehncke, Brenna Bath Abstract : Background: Low back disorder (LBD) is the most common musculoskeletal problem among farmers, with higher prevalence than other occupations. Operators of tractors and other farm machinery such as combines or all-terrain vehicles (ATV) can have considerable cumulative exposure to whole body vibration (WBV). Although there appears to be an association between LBD and WBV, lack of prospective studies makes the relationship between LBD and WBV unclear. Purpose: This study investigates the association between WBV and LBD among Saskatchewan farmers using a prospective cohort study Methods: The Saskatchewan Farm Injury Cohort Study Phase I (2007) and II (2013) data were used. Baseline data were collected via postal questionnaire on accumulated yearly tractor, combine, and ATV use as well as several covariates to support a biopsychosocial model of LBD. Follow-up data on musculoskeletal symptoms were collected for the 6-year with sample size of 1149. Questions on ‘low back trouble’ (ache, pain, discomfort) experienced in the last 12 months answered by farmer participants as ‘yes’ or ‘no’. A GEE-modified Poisson approach was performed using SPSS 22 and SAS 9.4. Results: Twelvemonth Prevalence of LBD was 59.8%. In multivariate analysis of the 6-year follow-up, LBD was associated with ATV operation and tractor operation, with a dose-response relationship for annual accumulated tractor operation. Although combine operation ≥ 61 hrs/year was related to LBD in bivariate analysis, this difference did not persist after adjustment for confounder. Age was found to be a confounder in relationship between WBV and LBD and no interactions were found. Conclusion: Longer annual tractor operation and older age are important predictors of LBD symptoms in farmers. Future research involving direct measurement can help identify appropriate prevention strategies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".