MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2322157106 · doi:10.1080/19338244.2011.627895

Back Pain Among Health Care Workers in a Saudi Aramco Facility: Prevalence and Associated Factors

2013· article· en· W2322157106 on OpenAlexaff
Marwan Behisi, Sultan T. Al-Otaibi, Jeremy Beach

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Environmental & Occupational Health · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNationalityMedicineOdds ratioConfidence intervalHealth careBack painHan nationalityOddsLow back painDemographyPhysical therapyFamily medicineAlternative medicineLogistic regressionInternal medicineImmigration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to identify risk factors for back pain among health care workers of Saudi Aramco. A validated questionnaire was used to collect information on back pain in the last 12 months as well as relevant risk factors among health care workers at a single Saudi Aramco health care facility. Completed responses were received from 964 of 3,295 workers. Three significant predictors for the presence of back pain were identified: female gender (odds ratio [OR] = 1.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.3-2.7), Saudi nationality (OR = 2.3, 95% CI = 1.4-3.9), and working as a surgeon (OR = 5.4, 95% CI = 1.4-21.5). Educational level was of borderline significance (OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 0.98-2.7). An interaction between gender and race was identified, with Saudi females being at particularly high risk of reporting back pain (OR = 3.9, 95% CI = 1.8-8.5). Gender, occupation, and nationality were identified as risk factors for back pain, and a particularly high risk was seen among female Saudis health care workers in Saudi Aramco. Nationality may be important because of cultural difference between groups, but also because of differences in benefits available.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Environmental & Occupational HealthSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207