Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low back pain (LBP) ranks fifth in prevalence as a reason for seeking medical attention, affecting nearly 60–80 % of individuals during their lifetime. This issue involves specialists from various clinical fields and necessitates a multidisciplinary approach to treatment. Understanding the pathogenic mechanisms of LBP and the functional limitations it imposes enables the optimization of treatment approaches and the selection of necessary rehabilitation interventions. Objective – to assess the functional impairment of patients with LBP based on pain localization and neurological status. Materials. Rehabilitation assessment and questionnaire surveys were conducted on 138 individuals with LBP referred to the outpatient rehabilitation department. The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale was employed for functional impairment assessment, and the Quebec Task Force Classification of Spinal Disorders was used for pain categorization based on location and the presence of neurological deficits. Results. The distribution of patients based on the Quebec Task Force Classification showed that 48 % had LBP without radiation and neurological deficits, 18 % had LBP radiating to the knee without neurological deficits, 14 % had LBP radiating below the knee without neurological deficits, 15 % had leg radiation with neurological deficits, and 5 % were post-operative cases within 6 months of surgery. According to the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale, patients with LBP radiating into the leg and neurological deficits exhibited the highest level of functional impairment, scoring 29.2±12.7 points compared to other patients. Conclusions. The level of functional impairment in patients with LBP depends on pain intensity, pain localization, and the degree of neurological symptoms. Patients with LBP radiating into the leg and neurological deficits have a higher level of functional impairment compared to other patients.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".