Construct validity of movement-evoked pain operational definitions in older adults with chronic low back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Movement-evoked pain (MeP) may predispose the geriatric chronic low back pain (LBP) population to health decline. As there are differing operational definitions for MeP, the question remains as to whether these different definitions have similar associations with health outcomes in older adults with chronic LBP. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of an observational study. SETTING: Clinical research laboratory. SUBJECTS: 226 older adults with chronic LBP. METHODS: This secondary analysis used baseline data from a prospective cohort study (n = 250). LBP intensity was collected before and after the repeated chair rise test, stair climbing test, and 6-minute walk test; MeP change scores (ie, sum of pretest pain subtracted from posttest pain) and aggregated posttest pain (ie, sum of posttest pain) variables were calculated. LBP-related disability and self-efficacy were measured by the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) and Low Back Activity Confidence Scale (LOBACS), respectively. Physical function was measured with the Health ABC Performance Battery. Robust regression with HC3 standard errors was used to evaluate adjusted associations between both MeP variables and disability, self-efficacy, and physical function. RESULTS: Greater aggregated posttest MeP was independently associated with worse disability (b = 0.593, t = 2.913, P = .004), self-efficacy (b = -0.870, t = -3.110, P = .002), and physical function (b = -0.017, t = -2.007, P = .039). MeP change scores were not associated with any outcome (all P > .050). CONCLUSIONS: Aggregate posttest MeP was linked to poorer health outcomes in older adults with chronic LBP, but MeP change scores were not. Future studies should consider that the construct validity of MeP paradigms partially depends on the chosen operational definition.
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 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 | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".