Contributions of Ergonomics, Psychological Factors, and Sleep Disturbances to Lower Back Pain Among Taiwanese Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We investigated the contributions of ergonomics, psychological factors, and sleep disturbances to lower back pain (LBP). METHODS: A nationwide survey of sampled 27,508 (2.6‰) Taiwanese workers was conducted in 2010. Definition of outcome was LBP affecting work performance in the past year. Predictor variables included age, body mass index, ergonomic factors, job control, psychological demands, and sleep disturbances. Mutually adjusted relative risks were examined using general linear models, followed by aPAR. RESULTS: 18,353 workers were included in the multivariate regression model. The three first significant risk factors to LBP included heavy lifting or awkward posture, sleep disturbances, and high psychological demands (aPAR = 13.5%, 8.7%, 5.7% respectively in men and 6.1%, 11.8%, 5.9% in women). CONCLUSIONS: In addition to ergonomic exposure, sleep disturbances and high psychological demands significantly contributed to LBP.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".