Prevalence of Mechanical Back Pain, Lumbar Lordosis and Disability Among Prolonged Standing Vs Prolonged Sitting Workers - Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background of the study: Low back pain is a common medical condition usually self-limiting lasting less than 3 months. It is an emerging problem in the adolescents with an incidence that is highest in the 3rd decade of life worldwide.60%-80% of adults experience low back pain in some point of their lifetime. When low back pain is untreated it leads to chronic low back pain which is the leading cause of disability. Objective: To identify the prevalence of low back pain in working professionals who predominantly use sitting posture and standing postures. Materials & Method: 30 individuals with low back pain were randomly assigned into standing and sitting group. The outcomes were measures of Pain, Lumbar lordosis, Disability mesured using Numerical pain rating scale, Flexible ruler, Quebec back pain disability scale. Study design: Observational Study-Cross sectional study. Study setting: Physical Medical and Rehabilitation, Orthopaedics Department, PSG Hospitals, Coimbatore. Participant: Study sample will consist of patient from PSG Hospitals. Study duration: 10 months. Result: 30 low back pain, individuals with each 15 individuals in standing group and 15 individuals in sitting group were recruited for this study. The analysis done between both the groups for pain, disability and lumbar lordosis. Conclusion: This study was conducted to find out the prevalence of mechanical back pain, disability and lumbar lordosis in prolonged sitting and standing posture in working with the age group of 25-50years. The overall interpretation of the study states that back pain is prevalent in working professional who have standing occupation. Key words: Mechanical low back pain, Lumbar lordosis, Flexible ruler, Disability
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 | 0.031 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".