Prevalence and Associated Factors of Low Back Pain (LBP) among Adolescents in Central, Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low Back Pain (LBP) is one of the most common musculoskeletal disorders found from adolescent to the elderly. These affect the quality of life of adolescents due to the inability to fully perform any activity. The information concerning LBP in Thailand is still limited especially among adolescents. Most related studies were conducted among young adult. The present study was aimed to determine the prevalence and the associated factors of LBP among adolescents in Central Thailand.METHODS: A total of 4944 adolescents were included in the study. The Nordic Standard Questionnaire (NSQ) was used to screen LBP conditions among these adolescents. Standardized questionnaires were used to collect demographic data and associated factors.RESULTS: The prevalence of LBP among adolescents was 26.7%. Univariate and multivariate analysis showed that adolescents with LBP were associated with both behavioral and physical activity factors. These factors included sex, grade, using a smartphone, transportation to school, suitability of chairs and desks, history of back injury and low frequency of exerciseCONCLUSION: Our data emphasized that LBP was a problem among adolescent. Supportive exercise and physical activity should be provided for adolescents.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".