A CROSS‐SECTIONAL SURVEY OF THE CLINICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL FEATURES OF LOW BACK PAIN AND CONSEQUENT WORK HANDICAP: USE OF THE QUEBEC TASK FORCE CLASSIFICATION
Classification
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".
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
SUMMARY A hospital‐based cross‐sectional study examined 657 consecutive referrals with low back pain over two years to a district rheumatology service serving a population of about 250,000 people. Five hundred and thirty‐eight had mechanical/degenerative low back pain. The mean age was 48.6 (range 18–80 SD 15.3) years; 64% were women. Patients with radiating pain or neurological deficit (Quebec Task Force classification) were significantly more disabled (Roland disability score p<0.001) and depressed (Modified Zung score p<0.05) than those without radiating pain. Women were more impaired (p=0.02) than men but had similar disabilities (mean Roland score 11.7, range 0–24 SD 6.5). Fifty‐three per cent of patients were receiving benefits and were significantly more likely to have musculoskeletal comorbidities than those in work (p<0.025). It is concluded that the Quebec Task Force classification of low back pain impairment is a helpful descriptor and related to both physical and psychological disability and handicap in employment.
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 | 0.056 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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