MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2418553578

[MEASURING THE FUNCTIONAL IMPAIRMENT OF THE LUMBAR SPINE].

2015· article· en· W2418553578 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tamás Valasek, Péter Varga, István Klemencsics, Zsolt Szövérfi, Árpád Bozsódi, Péter Endre Éltes, Áron Lazáry

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOswestry Disability IndexCronbach's alphaPhysical therapyVisual analogue scaleMedicineLow back painQuality of life (healthcare)Back painPsychologyPsychometricsClinical psychologyNursing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of our study was to outline the Hungarian validation process of the Oswestry Disability Index, the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Core Outcome Measurement Index, as well as to draw up recommendations regarding their future applications. METHODS: The Hungarian versions were created after a cultural and linguistic adaptation. Next to the above-mentioned questionnaires, the questionnaire booklet used for validation also contained the WHOQoL-BREF general quality of life questionnaire and a pain measuring Visual Analog Scale. The data of low-back pain patients were registered twice in two weeks. We determined the internal homogeneity (Cronbach alpha), reproducibility, standard error of measurement and the minimal detectable change of the questionnaires. Patients were assigned into different two subgroups (surgical / non-surgical, with/without affection of nerve roots) and differences between the subgroups were examined with the help of the questionnaires. We determined the physical subscale of the WHOQoL-BREF and the correlation between the pain and the studied questionnaires. RESULTS: The value of Cronbach alpha was between 0.85 and 0.95. All four questionnaires showed significant differences (p<0.001) between the subgroups. The correlation studies brought strong and significant results (p<0.001, r>0.5) in every case. The values of reproducibility were between 0.93-0.92. The results of standard measurement error: 4.8 (Oswestry), 5.2 (Quebec), 1.6 (Roland-Morris), 0.59 (Core Index). The minimal detectable change was 13; 14; 4, and 2 points, respectively. CONCLUSION: The Hungarian versions of all four questionnaires are valid. They can be applied with scientific certainty to measure low back pain patients. From the studied questionnaires, we especially recommend the wide-raging application of the Oswestry Disability Index and the Core Outcome Measurement Index based on their psychometric and application features.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.153 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology→French-language works237,207→