A correlation study to establish a correlation between kinesiophobia with disability and mechanical factors in subjects with chronic non – specific low back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Back problem has become the most expensive musculoskeletal malady in the industrialized nation of the world. It is the common affliction whose specific cause and precise treatment are still baffling to the medical profession. Aim and objectives:-to determine whether Kinesiophobia, Disability, Pelvic inclination angle, Lumbar Lordosis and Lumbar ROM have any correlation in patients with chronic back pain. Methodology: Patients coming to prayas health care centre, bala pritam hospital, gokul , sbspgi opd dehradun. They were assigned according to inclusion criteria with 15 females and 13 males in two groups. Data was collected via tampa scale of kinesiophobia, quebec back pain disability score, Bow leg caliper, flexible ruler and schober’s method. Result: A statistically insignificant correlation was found between the mean of Tampa scale of kinesiophobia (TSK), quebec back pain disability score (QBPDS), Pelvic inclination angle (PIA), Lumbar lordosis (LL), Lumbar flexion (LF) and lumbar extension (LE) among the population. The Karl Pearson’s correlation coefficient for TSK, QBPDS, PIA, LL, LF, LE found no correlation ie. (0.164), (0.911), (0.556), (0.900), (0.112) for females and (0.006) (0.914), (0.314), (0.958), (0.634) for males respectively. Conclusion: only TSK and QBPDS in males showed positive correlation. Keywords: TSK, QBPDS, Pelvic inclination angle, Lumbar lordosis, Lumbar flexion, Lumbar extension.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".