Postural abnormalities in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale: Pain is common in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and the cause of upper and lower back pain in COPD may be postural dysfunction, including increased thoracic (Tx) kyphosis and altered scapula position. However, the extent of postural deviation in COPD is unknown. This study aimed to compare the postural characteristics of people with COPD to those of control subjects and explore the relationship between posture deviations and reports of pain in COPD. Methods: Subjects with COPD and age, gender, BMI and comorbidity-matched controls underwent a postural assessment in an upright standing position. Photogrammetry using digital photographs and 3-D motion analysis were used to generate the coordinates of skeletal structures from anatomical landmarks identified with reflective markers. The postural measures were spinal orientation, Tx kyphosis and scapula orientation. Those with COPD completed questionnaires related to pain. Results: Twenty-one subjects with COPD (mean FEV1 45% pd) and 21 matched controls completed the study. In controls, the spinal alignment (linear position of C7 in relation to S1 (anterior-posterior)) was 23mm(95% CI 12 to 33mm), while in COPD, the alignment was 42mm(95% CI 29 to 54); 50% of those with COPD exceeded the 95% CI of the control group. Tx kyphosis (p=0.03) and scapula anterior tilt (p=0.001) were increased in COPD compared to controls (p=0.03), but were unrelated to back pain intensity. Conclusions: Postural deviations are evident in COPD compared to those without lung disease, but appear to have no relationship to pain. Further work is needed to identify the contributing factors to these postural deviations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".