Evaluation of the correlation between the Istanbul Low Back Pain Disability Index, Back Pain Functional Scale and other back pain disability scales in Turkish patients with low back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low back pain is an important health problem that may cause functional loss. Several back pain disability scales have been developed in different languages. OBJECTIVE: The present study evaluates the correlation between the Istanbul Low Back Pain Disability Index (ILBPDI) the Back Pain Functional Scale (BPFS) and other back pain disability scales in patients with mechanical low back pain. METHODS: Included in the study were 105 patients who presented to our outpatient clinics and who were diagnosed with mechanical low back pain. The ILBPDI, BPFS, Quebec back pain disability scale (QBPDS) and Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire (ODI) were administered to all participants, and Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were recorded. RESULTS: A strongly negative correlation was identified between ILBPDI and BPFS (p< 0.05), and a strongly positive correlation was noted between ILBPDI and QBPDS, ODI and VAS. CONCLUSION: A strong correlation exists between ILBPDI and BPFS, and a further strong correlation between ILBPDI ODI and QBPDS. These questionnaires can be used interchangeably to evaluate disability associated with chronic mechanical low back pain.
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 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 | 0.037 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".