Examining the Association Between Self-Reported Estimates of Function and Objective Measures of Gait and Physical Capacity in Lumbar Stenosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of self-reported physical function with subjective and objective measures as well as temporospatial gait features in lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). DESIGN: Cross-sectional pilot study. SETTING: Outpatient multispecialty clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Participants with LSS and matched controls without LSS (n=10 per group; N=20). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported physical function (36-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36] physical functioning domain), Oswestry Disability Index, Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire, the Neurogenic Claudication Outcome Score, and inertia measurement unit (IMU)-derived temporospatial gait features. RESULTS: <.05). Compared with controls without LSS, patients with LSS have lower scores on physical capacity measures (median total distance traveled on 6-minute walk test: controls 505 m vs LSS 316 m; median total distance traveled on self-paced walking test: controls 718 m vs LSS 174 m). Observed differences in IMU-derived gait features, physical capacity measures, disability ratings, and neurogenic claudication scores between populations with and without LSS were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Further evaluation of the association of IMU-derived temporospatial gait with self-reported physical function, pain related-disability, neurogenic claudication, and spinal stenosis symptom severity score in LSS would help clarify their role in tracking LSS outcomes.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".