MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The assessment of paraspinal muscle epimuscular fat in participants with and without low back pain: A case-control study

2024· article· en· W4391295261 on OpenAlexafffund
Brent Rosenstein, Jessica Burdick, Alexa Roussac, Meaghan Rye, Neda Naghdi, Stéphanie Valentin, Theresia Licka, Monica Sean, Pascal Tétreault, Jim Elliott, Maryse Fortin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomechanics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversité de SherbrookeConcordia University
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéAustrian Science FundRéseau en Bio-Imagerie du Quebec
KeywordsMultifidus muscleLow back painMedicineLumbarIntramuscular fatPhysical therapyLumbosacral jointLumbar vertebraeInternal medicineAnatomyPathologyBiologyAnimal science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It remains unclear whether paraspinal muscle fatty infiltration in low back pain (LBP) is i) solely intramuscular, ii) is lying outside the epimysium between the muscle and fascial plane (epimuscular) or iii) or combination of both, as imaging studies often use different segmentation protocols that are not thoroughly described. Epimuscular fat possibly disturbs force generation of paraspinal muscles, but is seldomly explored. This project aimed to 1) compare epimuscular fat in participants with and without chronic LBP, and 2) determine whether epimuscular fat is different across lumbar spinal levels and associated with BMI, age, sex and LBP status, duration or intensity. Fat and water lumbosacral MRIs of 50 chronic LBP participants and 41 healthy controls were used. The presence and extent of epimuscular fat for the paraspinal muscle group (erector spinae and multifidus) was assessed using a qualitative score (0-5 scale; 0=no epimuscular fat and 5=epimuscular fat present along the entire muscle) and quantitative manual segmentation method. Chi-squared tests evaluated associations between qualitative epimuscular fat ratings and LBP status at each lumbar level. Bivariate and partial spearman’s rho correlation assessed relationships between quantitative and qualitative epimuscular fat with participants’ characteristics. Epimuscular fat was more frequent at the L4-L5 (X2= 13.781, p=0.017) and L5-S1 level (X2= 27.825, p<0.001) in participants with LBP compared to controls, which was not found for the higher lumbar levels. The total qualitative score (combined from all levels) showed a significant positive correlation with BMI, age, sex (female) and LBP status (r=0.23-0.55; p<0.05). Similarly, the total area of epimuscular fat (quantitative measure) was significantly correlated with BMI, age and LBP status (r=0.26-0.57; p<0.05). No correlations were found between epimuscular fat and LBP duration or intensity. Paraspinal muscle epimuscular fat is more common in chronic LBP patients. The functional implications of epimuscular fat should be further explored.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of BiomechanicsSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207