Changes in the macroscopic morphology of hip muscles in low back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Low back pain is a major health issue affecting the lumbopelvic muscles. Morphological changes in hip muscles, such as alterations in the muscle cross‐sectional area and muscle volume, may occur in patients with low back pain. This systematic review was conducted to investigate whether patients with low back pain have macroscopic changes in their hip muscle morphology compared with asymptomatic, healthy individuals, based on current evidence. The electronic databases of PubMed/Medline, Ovid, Scopus, Embase®, and Google Scholar were searched from the inception to August 31, 2018. We only included full texts of original studies regarding macroscopic morphological alterations, including atrophy and fat infiltration, in hip muscles of patients with low back pain compared with asymptomatic controls. The quality of the included studies was determined using an assessment tool based on the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. The scale was modified for the purposes of this study. Sixteen comparative observational studies were found eligible to be included in this review. Eleven were classified as high quality and four as moderate quality. The morphological changes in the psoas major, gluteus maximus, gluteus medius, gluteus minimus, and piriformis muscles were assessed in the primary studies. All selected studies were considered B level of evidence studies. The strength of conclusions for the psoas major, gluteal, and piriformis muscles was moderate. The results revealed that there is substantial controversy about the morphological changes in hip muscles in patients with low back pain; however, the majority of high‐quality studies concluded that atrophy of hip muscles is evident in patients with low back pain. The psoas major muscle was the most commonly investigated hip muscle for morphological changes. Major methodological limitations of the included studies were identified and discussed. The present systematic review does not include a formal meta‐analysis because of very significant differences in the primary studies in terms of study populations and methodologies. Finally, in clinical practice, it is recommended that physical therapists develop exercise programs to improve hip muscle function in patients with low back pain.
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 | 0.009 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".