The role of machine learning in the primary prevention of work-related musculoskeletal disorders: A scoping review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine the applications of machine learning (ML) techniques used for the primary prevention of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs), a scoping review was conducted using seven literature databases. Of the 4,639 initial results, 130 primary research studies were deemed relevant for inclusion. Studies were reviewed and classified as a contribution to one of six steps within the primary WMSD prevention research framework by van der Beek et al. (2017). ML techniques provided the greatest contributions to the development of interventions (48 studies), followed by risk factor identification (33 studies), underlying mechanisms (29 studies), incidence of WMSDs (14 studies), evaluation of interventions (6 studies), and implementation of effective interventions (0 studies). Nearly a quarter (23.8%) of all included studies were published in 2020. These findings provide insight into the breadth of ML techniques used for primary WMSD prevention and can help identify areas for future research and development.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it