MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898191252 · doi:10.1080/1059924x.2018.1538918

The association between awkward working posture and low back disorders in farmers: a systematic review

2018· review· en· W2898191252 on OpenAlex
Muhammad Idrees Khan, Brenna Bath, Catherine Boden, Olugbenga Adebayo, Catherine Trask

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agromedicine · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsCINAHLWorkloadContext (archaeology)ScopusAssociation (psychology)Human factors and ergonomicsApplied psychologyMEDLINEPsychologyEnvironmental healthPoison controlMedicineComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Low back disorders (LBD) are the most common musculoskeletal problem among farmers, with higher prevalence than other occupations. Although studies of the general population have shown an association between LBD and awkward working posture, farmers have unique work context and exposures that may modify this relationship. This review aimed to 1) identify published research studies investigating posture as a risk factor for LBD in farmers/agricultural workers, and 2) determine the strength of the relationship between postural exposure and LBD risk of bias assessment. METHOD: Comprehensive electronic searches of Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL, SCOPUS, PubMed, and EMBASE were carried out with combined conceptual groups of search terms for 'farming' and 'LBD.' After screening, data were extracted to summarize the study design, sample characteristics, exposure assessment methods, LBD risk factors, demographic information, data collection methods, farm commodities, job context, and sampling strategy. Data were synthesized to determine the weight of evidence for awkward working posture as a risk factor for LBD among farmers. RESULTS: Nine studies were included in this review. All studies used self-report; there were no field-based studies including direct measurement of awkward posture. There was diversity in exposure definition, exposure assessment, LBD definition, worker characteristics, and analytical approaches. There was evidence to support association between awkward working posture and LBD among farmers. CONCLUSION: Despite the diversity, the weight of evidence supported a relationship between awkward posture and LBD. Well-designed epidemiological studies with quantitative physical workload assessments, consistent and valid LBD definitions, and longitudinal designs are recommended to clarify the relationship between awkward posture and LBD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.303 · 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