The relationship between forward head posture and neck pain disability in chronic whiplash-associated disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the association between forward head posture (FHP) and neck pain disability in patients with chronic whiplash associated disorders (WAD). METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis based on data from a randomized controlled study. The study involved patients with chronic WAD reporting their disability using the Neck Disability Index (NDI). FHP was measured with a goniometer. Analyses of correlations and logistic regressions were performed controlling for age, gender, duration of symptoms, WAD-grade (the Quebec Task Force on Whiplash-Associated Disorders classification), bodily pain (the Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) and kinesiophobia, an irrational fear of physical movement and activity (the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK-SV). RESULTS: The inclusion criteria was fulfilled by 113 patients (81 women, 32 men). Mean age 48.1 years. Mean duration of symptoms 9.7 years. There was no significant correlation between FHP and neck pain disability (rs = 0.004, p = 0.968). A logistic regression analysis showed no significance for FHP neither with (p = 0.418) nor without (p = 0.991) control for age, gender, duration of symptoms, WAD-grade, kinesiophobia and bodily pain. In the multiple model kinesiophobia (p = 0.013) and bodily pain (p = < 0.001) were the only significant predictors. Kinesiophobia was also significantly correlated with both neck pain disability (rs = 0.467, p < 0.001) and FHP (rs = 0.202, p = 0.047), thus being a confounder to the possible correlation between these variables. CONCLUSIONS: There is no significant correlation between neck pain disability and FHP for patients with chronic WAD. Results suggest that physiotherapists should increase their focus on kinesiophobia, since it is associated with both FHP and neck pain disability.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".