GENDER DIFFERENCE IN OCCUPATIONAL PERFORMANCE, QUALITY OF LIFE AND TRUNK MUSCLE ENDURANCE IN PHYSICAL THERAPISTS WITH LOW BACK PAIN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Low back pain has a profound impact on work ability and quality of life. Reduced trunk muscle endurance can be a cause or a consequence of low back pain. Objective: the purpose of this study was to examine the effect of gender on trunk muscle endurance, occupational performance, and quality of life in physical therapists with non-specific low back pain. Study Design: descriptive, cross-sectional study in a clinical setting. Methods: researchers recruited ninety-seven (F= 55, M= 42) physical therapists with non-specific low back pain for this study. Population?s mean ?SD age and body mass index were 25.04 ? 2 years, and 24.57 ? 2.93 kg/m? respectively. Researchers assessed trunk muscle endurance using McGill and Biering-S?rensen endurance testing. They conducted a self-reported Occupational Role Performance questionnaire to assess occupational performance. Researchers used the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey to assess quality of life. They used T-test and Mann-Whitney U test to evaluate difference between genders. Results: Trunk endurance times were significantly lower in females than in males (p = 0.0001). Scores of Occupational Role Performance questionnaire were significantly higher in females (p = 0.001), while there was a significant decrease in quality of life scores of females compared with that of males (p = 0.001). Conclusion: Female Physical Therapists with non-specific low back pain have lower scores of trunk muscle endurance, occupational performance, and quality of life. Results should be considered in assessment and management approaches to improve functional ability and quality of life
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".