Reliability and validation of the Turkish version of the Low Back Outcome Score
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to validate the Turkish version of the Low Back Outcome Score and check its reliability in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). METHODS: Overall, 105 patients (81 women and 24 men; mean age: 49.5 years (18-65 years)) with a complaint of LBP for at least 3 months were included in this study. Test-retest reliability was assessed after 7 days. Overall score of LBOS was compared with the overall scores of "Rolland-Morris Disability Questionnaire," "Oswestry Disability Index," "Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale," "SF-36," and "Bournemouth Questionnaire for Back Pain" to calculate the convergent validity by using Pearson correlation coefficient. RESULTS: The questionnaire was noted to have high internal consistency. The test-retest analysis revealed an excellent correlation (ICC=0.80). Pearson correlation coefficient of the LBOS was assessed using VAS and had an excellent correlation with all the questionnaires included in this study. CONCLUSION: The Turkish version of the LBOS questionnaire appeared to be a valid and reliable outcome measure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Diagnostic study.
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 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".