MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2954300436

The Relationship between chronic low back pain and sleep pattern (using data derived from the Persian cohort; Fasa(

2019· article· en· W2954300436 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
parisa moradikelardeh, Mehrdad Taheri, Habib Zakeri

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortPersianChronic painTraditional medicinePhysical therapyInternal medicineLinguistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background & objective: Chronic low back pain is one of the most common disorders associated with chronic pain that is correlated with a wide range of psychological issue such as problems in sleep pattern. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between sleep pattern and chronic low back pain. Materials & Methods: The research method was cross-sectional- descriptive–analytic and the statistical populations were residents of Sheshdeh of Fars province. Among them 1,366 people participated in the study by convenience sampling method. The instrument included a questionnaire of Persian cohort, Oswestry inventory and McGill Questionnaire. Data were analyzed using SPSS . V-24 software. Results: 90.9% of the subjects were male and 39.09% were female. The results showed that there is a reverse relationship between the LBP، pattern and the quality of sleep, and with the increase in pain, the amount of sleep decreases. Conclusion: results of this study indicate that the quality of sleep should be considered in treatment of patients with chronic pain, especially those with chronic LBP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.235
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→