MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3139932280 · doi:10.18502/jmr.v15i2.7726

Altered Respiratory Function in Patients With Low Back Pain: A Review Article

2021· review· en· W3139932280 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zahra Abdollahzadeh, Hanieh Abbasi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Modern Rehabilitation · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRehabilitationPhysical therapyLow back painRespiratory systemPhysical medicine and rehabilitationBreathing exercisesBreathingInternal medicineAlternative medicineAnesthesiaPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.798
Threshold uncertainty score0.866

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Modern RehabilitationSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207