MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313414450 · doi:10.3390/jcm12010218

An Investigation of the Association between 3D Spinal Alignment and Fibromyalgia

2022· article· en· W4313414450 on OpenAlexaff
Amal Ahbouch, Ibrahim M. Moustafa, Tamer Shousha, Ashokan Arumugam, Paul A. Oakley, Deed E. Harrison

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsCanadian Rheumatology AssociationYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFibromyalgiaAssociation (psychology)Physical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is a common condition lacking strong diagnostic criteria; these criteria continue to evolve as more and more studies are performed to explore it. This investigation sought to identify whether participants with FMS have more frequent and larger postural/spinal displacements in comparison to a matched control group without the condition of FMS. A total of 67 adults (55 females) out of 380 participants with FMS were recruited. Participants with FMS were sex- and age-matched with 67 asymptomatic participants (controls) without FMS. We used a three-dimensional (3D) postural assessment device (Formetric system) to analyze five posture variables in each participant in both groups: (1) thoracic kyphotic angle, (2) trunk imbalance, (3) trunk inclination, (4) lumbar lordotic angle, and (5) vertebral rotation. In order to determine whether 3D postural measures could predict the likelihood of a participant having FMS, we applied the matched-pairs binary logistic regression analysis. The 3D posture measures identified statistically and clinically significant differences between the FMS and control groups for each of the five posture variables measured (p < 0.001). For three out of five posture measurements assessed, the binary logistic regression identified there was an increased probability of having FMS with an increased: (1) thoracic kyphotic angle proportional odds ratio [Prop OR] = 1.76 (95% CI = 1.03, 3.02); (2) sagittal imbalance Prop OR = 1.54 (95% CI = 0.973, 2.459); and (3) surface rotation Prop OR = 7.9 (95% CI = 1.494, 41.97). We identified no significant probability of having FMS for the following two postural measurements: (1) coronal balance (p = 0.50) and (2) lumbar lordotic angle (p = 0.10). Our study’s findings suggest there is a strong relationship between 3D spinal misalignment and the diagnosis of FMS. In fact, our results support that thoracic kyphotic angle, sagittal imbalance, and surface rotation are predictors of having FMS.

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)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.350 · 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MedicineSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207