Nonspecific Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The pathogenesis of low back pain (LBP) remains unclear. However, recent studies suggest that the inflammatory response may be inherent in spinal pain. The purpose of this study was to discern inflammatory profiles in patients with nonspecific acute and chronic LBP in relation to those in asymptomatic individuals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Peripheral blood samples were obtained from asymptomatic controls and patients with nonspecific acute and chronic LBP reporting a minimum pain score of 3 on a 10-point Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). The levels of in vitro production of proinflammatory (tumor necrosis factor α [TNFα], interleukin [IL] 1β, IL-6, IL-2, interferon γ) and anti-inflammatory (IL-1 receptor antagonist, soluble receptors of TNF2, and IL-10) mediators were determined by specific immunoassays. RESULTS: The mean VAS scores were comparable between the acute and chronic LBP patient groups. Compared with asymptomatic group, the production of TNFα, IL-1β, IL-6 and their ratios to IL-10 levels were significantly elevated in both patient groups (P=0.0001 to 0.003). In acute LBP group, the ratio of IL-2:IL-10 was also significantly increased (P=0.02). In contrast, the production of interferon γ was significantly reduced compared with the other study groups (P=0.005 to 0.01), nevertheless, it was positively correlated (P=0.006) with pain scores. In chronic LBP patients, the production of TNFα, IL-1 receptor antagonist, and soluble receptors of TNF2 was significantly increased (P=0.001 to 0.03) in comparison with the control and acute LBP groups, and TNFα and IL-1β levels were positively correlated (P<0.001) with VAS scores. CONCLUSIONS: The inflammatory profiles of patients with acute and chronic LBP are distinct. Nonetheless, in both patient groups, an imbalance between proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory mediator levels favors the production of proinflammatory components.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
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".