MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206252458 · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-04060-7

Factors associated with back pain in children aged 6 to 12 years of age, an eight months prospective study

2022· article· en· W4206252458 on OpenAlexafffundabout

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Performance
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentreUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
KeywordsLogistic regressionProspective cohort studyIncidence (geometry)Back painFamily historyCumulative incidenceNatural historyPersistence (discontinuity)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Associated factors of back pain (BP) development before puberty and its persistence are poorly documented. We investigated the association and possible temporality between prior BP history (PBPH), muscular endurance (ME), aerobic capacity (AC), sport activity variables (SAV) and BP in children aged 6 to 12. We collected baseline characteristics (demographics, PBPH, ME, AC and SAV) of children from three primary schools in Canada. Parents replied to weekly text messages regarding their children BP status over an 8-month period. Logistic regression models were adjusted for potential confounders. Data from 242 children (46% female; 8.6 ± 1.7 years) were included. Over the 8-month survey BP prevalence was 48.1%, while the cumulative incidence was 31.9%. The occurrence of at least one BP event was associated with PBPH [OR (IC 95%) = 6.33 (2.35-17.04)] and high AC [2.89 (1.21-6.90)]. High AC was also associated with the development of a first BP episode [2.78 (1.09-7.07)], but ME and SAV were not. BP appears to be relatively common before puberty. BP history seems to be strongly associated with BP recurrence in children. Aerobic capacity is associated with first BP episode 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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.692

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicOccupational Health and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207