Physical activity is prospectively associated with spinal pain in children (CHAMPS Study-DK)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTARCT: Spinal pain and physical inactivity are critical public health issues. We investigated the prospective associations of physical activity intensity with spinal pain in children. Physical activity was quantified with accelerometry in a cohort of primary school students. Over 19 months, parents of primary school students reported children's spinal pain status each week via text-messaging (self-reported spinal pain). Spinal pain reports were followed-up by trained clinicians who diagnosed each child's complaint and classified the pain as non-traumatic or traumatic. Associations were examined with logistic regression modeling using robust standard errors and reported with odds ratios (OR). Children (n = 1205, 53.0% female) with mean ± SD age of 9.4 ± 1.4 years, participated in 75,180 weeks of the study. Nearly one-third (31%) of children reported spinal pain, and 14% were diagnosed with a spinal problem. Moderate intensity physical activity was protectively associated with self-reported [OR(95%CI) = 0.84(0.74, 0.95)], diagnosed [OR(95%CI) = 0.79(0.67, 0.94)] and traumatic [OR(95%CI) = 0.77(0.61, 0.96)] spinal pain. Vigorous intensity physical activity was associated with increased self-reported [OR(95%CI) = 1.13(1.00, 1.27)], diagnosed [OR(95%CI) = 1.25(1.07, 1.45)] and traumatic [OR(95%CI) = 1.28(1.05, 1.57)] spinal pain. The inclusion of age and sex covariates weakened these associations. Physical activity intensity may be a key consideration in the relationship between physical activity behavior and spinal pain in children.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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 it