MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4280611981 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1650708/v1

Degenerative spinal pathology is associated with altered lumbar multifidus muscle morphology: a cross-sectional study of patients attending a public outpatient spine clinic with low back or leg pain.

2022· preprint· en· W4280611981 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey R. Cooley, Tue Secher Jensen, Per Kjær, Angela Jacques, Jean Théroux, Jeffrey J. Hébert

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersChiropractic and Osteopathic College of Australasia
KeywordsMedicineLumbarMultifidus muscleLow back painCross-sectional studyMagnetic resonance imagingOutpatient clinicPhysical therapyPathologyInternal medicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: There is ongoing interest in assessing the lumbar multifidus muscles to determine their role in patients with non-specific low back pain. While associations between lumbar-related pain, altered multifidus morphology, and/or degenerative pathologies have been implied, it is unknown how these associations may be influenced by the severity, number, or distribution of pathologies. This study explores the associations of degenerative lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings, both individually and in combination, to multifidus muscle morphology. Methods: Cross-sectional study in a secondary care setting. Outpatient spinal clinic patients, 17 to 72 years of age, presented with a primary complaint of low back and/or leg symptoms. MRI-based average percentage pure multifidus muscle cross-sectional area (% MCSA) at L4 and L5, and the worst % MCSA measures at L4 or L5, were acquired. Univariable and multivariable linear regression models, adjusted for age, sex and BMI, investigated for cross-sectional associations between the presence, distribution, and/or severity of MRI-identified lumbar degenerative pathologies (both individually and in aggregate) and the outcome measures. Results were reported with unstandardized beta coefficients and [95% confidence intervals].Results: Data from 522 patients [294 females; mean (SD) age: 43.6 (9.8) years] were included. The average and worst % MCSA were lower in the presence of each type of pathology, as the severity or distribution increased, and as the number of different pathologies increased. Multivariable analysis identified disc degeneration at two or more levels (average: -4.51 [-6.72; -2.3]; worst: -4.32 [-6.52; -2.12]), Modic type 2 changes (average: -4.06 [-6.09; -2.04]; worst: -4.35 [-6.36; -2.35]), endplate defects (average: -2.74 [-4.58; -0.91]; worst: -2.18 [-4.0; -0.36]), facet joint arthrosis (average: -4.02 [-6.26; -1.78]; worst: -3.78 [-6.01; -1.54]), and moderate to severe disc herniations (average: -3.66 [-5.8; -1.52]) as being associated with lower % MCSA. The presence of 6 or more pathologies demonstrated the greatest % MCSA difference for all variables (average: -6.77 [-9.76; -3.77]; worst: -6.28 [-9.28; -3.28]), supporting a potential dose-response relationship between spinal pathology and LMM morphology.Conclusions: Significant associations were identified between disc degeneration, facet joint arthrosis, Modic type 2 marrow changes, an increasing aggregate of pathologies, and lower % MCSA. These associations could hypothetically indicate that the spinal and muscle findings: 1) are both part of the same degenerative process, 2) both result from prior injury or other common antecedent events, or 3) may contain a directional relationship. Future longitudinal studies are needed to further examine the complex nature of these relationships, taking into account the type, severity, total levels affected, and total number of different pathologies present.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology→French-language works237,207→