Transient Low Back Pain Development During Standing Predicts Future Clinical Low Back Pain in Previously Asymptomatic Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal, observational. OBJECTIVE: To determine if development of transient low back pain (LBP) during prolonged standing in individuals without prior history of LBP predicts future clinical LBP development at higher rates than in individuals who do not develop LBP during prolonged standing. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Prolonged standing has been found to induce transient LBP in 40% to 70% of previously asymptomatic individuals. Individuals who develop pain during standing have been found to have altered neuromuscular profiles prior to the standing exposure compared with their pain free counterparts; therefore, it has been hypothesized that these individuals may have higher risk for LBP disorders. METHODS: Previously asymptomatic participants who had completed a biomechanical study investigating LBP development during standing and response to exercise intervention completed annual surveys regarding LBP status for a period of 3 years. χ2 analyses were performed to determine group differences in LBP incidence rates. Accuracy statistics were calculated for ability of LBP development during standing to predict future LBP. RESULTS: Participants who developed transient LBP during standing had significantly higher rates of clinical LBP during the 3-year follow-up period (35.3% vs. 23.1%) and were 3 times more likely to experience an episode of clinical LBP during the first 24 months than their non-pain developing counterparts. CONCLUSION: Transient LBP development during prolonged standing is a positive predictive factor for future clinical LBP in previously asymptomatic individuals. Individuals who experience transient LBP during standing may be considered a "preclinical" group who are at increased risk for future LBP disorders.
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".