Lumbar Spine Coronal Balance Parameters as a Predictor of the Rehabilitation Management Outcomes in Patients With Radiculopathy Due to Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A multicenter, prospective cohort study conducted in 5 physiotherapy clinics in the UAE from January 2021 to March 2023 to assess coronal lumbar spine radiographic parameters as a predictor of conservative therapy outcomes in patients suffering from low back and leg pain due to lumbar disc herniation (HNP). Ninety patients (mean age 44 yrs., 54% male) with lumbar HNP underwent conservative therapy. All participants received lumbar spine MRI and radiography to assess spine alignment. Interventions included specific exercises, diathermy, traction, education, a home-based exercise pro-gram, and medications. Detailed demographic data was collected. Follow-up was 6-months after discharge. A successful outcome was based on a minimum of the following four outcomes: (1) reduction of pain by 17.5 points (0–100 NRS); (2) fatigue reduction by 7.5 points; (3) distress reduction by 5 points; and (4) interference reduction by 9.5 points. At 6-month follow-up it was found that patient age, education, and radio-graphic determined lumbosacral angle measures significantly affected the odds of a successful outcome. Increasing age 1-year significantly decreased the odds of success of improving pain, fatigue (OR = 0.85, p = 0.016) and interference scores (OR = 0.89, p = 0.042) by 15%, 15%, and 11% respectively. Lower education significantly increased the odds of success for improving pain, fatigue, and interference by 26.18, 26.18, and 7.5 (p = 0.006, = 0.006, and = 0.029 respectively). Increasing (worsening) the radiographic lumbosacral angle by each 1° significantly reduced the odds of success for improving pain, fatigue, distress, and interference by 3.52, 3.52, 27.99, and 2.55, respectively (p < 0.001, < 0.001, = 0.003, = 0.001). Our findings indicate that younger age, less education, and better coronal radiological lumbar spine alignment all had a substantial impact on the likelihood of success of 6-month outcomes in patients suffering from chronic lower back pain and radiculopathy due to HNP.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".