Altered Respiratory Function in Patients With Low Back Pain: A Review Article
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Low Back Pain (LBP) is a major musculoskeletal complaint and a multidimensional problem. This study aimed to answer whether patients with LBP have an altered pattern or a reduced rate of respiration compared to healthy people. Materials and Methods: Two reviewers searched the PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar databases from 2000 to 2020 using the search terms “low back pain” OR “low backache” OR “lumbago” AND “breath” OR “respiration”. The methodological quality of articles generated by the search was appraised using the modified version of the Newcastle- Ottawa scale. Results: A total of 7 studies were selected for the final review, with two examining respiratory parameters, one investigating the effects of cognitive tasks on respiratory function, two determining the impact of performing a task on respiratory function, and two observing breathing patterns during different tasks. Conclusion: Respiratory function is sub-optimal in chronic patients with LBP. Thus, respiratory rehabilitation is crucial to managing LBP problems.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".