A Machine Learning Approach for the Classification of Lower Back Pain in the Human Body
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 21st century has been witnessing a high growth in technology in every field including the medical sector. Dynamic systems have been designed and implied for better and accurate diagnosis of a large variety of ailments; but, the growing number of patients makes it difficult to provide proper medical attention in time. To overcome this difficulty, Intelligent Systems techniques can be employed in the medical sector and help us overcome the huge difference in the ratio of doctors versus patients; along with reducing the examination and waiting time for the patients. Among all the variety of ailments prevailing in today's world, "Lower Back Pain" has emerged as one of the most prevailing ailments which includes around 80% of the total population once in lifetime, making it to one of the prior concerns of medical sector. To act effectively onto it, many conventional methods have been used to diagnose lower back pain. This study aims to design a non-Conventional technique to classify Lower back pain either Normal or Abnormal using Machine Learning techniques such as Na ve Bayes, Support Vector Machines, Decision Trees, Gradient Boosted Trees, Fast Large Margin, K Nearest Neighbor, Multilayer Perceptron, Random Forest, and Artificial Neural Networks. This research focuses upon the implementation of the above-mentioned techniques for the proper classification of Spine Dataset and for determining the best technique in terms of Accuracy, Precision, Sensitivity, Specificity, F-measure and Area under Curve.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it