Thoracolumbar fascia and chronic low back pain in idiopathic lumbar scoliosis: an ultrasonographic study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The role of thoracolumbar fascia (TLF) in the development of chronic low back pain (CLBP) has growing evidence in the literature. Although CLBP is reported in individuals with idiopathic scoliosis (IS), its relationship with the TLF has yet not been established. This study aims to evaluate the TLF and its relationship with CLBP in IS. METHODS: A total of 60 individuals were included in the study. They were divided into three groups as follows: painful scoliosis (n = 20, age: 17.1 ± 3.7 years, Cobb angle: 15-43°), non-painful scoliosis (n = 20, age: 16.4 ± 3.4 years, Cobb angle: 15-45°), and healthy group (n = 20, age: 16.4 ± 4.7 years). Pain was evaluated using the short form of the McGill Pain Questionnaire. TLF thickness was evaluated on the lumbar region using ultrasonography. Trunk range of motion was assessed using a universal goniometer, and flexibility was assessed with sit-and-reach test. RESULTS: The thickness of the right TLF was greatest in the painful group, followed by non-painful (p = 0.007) and healthy (p < 0.001) groups. The thickness of the left TLF in the non-painful and painful groups was greater compared to the healthy group (p < 0.001). In the painful group, right TLF thickness was negatively correlated with trunk flexion/extension (r = -0.540, p = 0.014/r = -0.514, p = 0.020) and left rotation (r = -0.499, p = 0.025) but positively correlated with pain (r = 0.562, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Thickening of the TLF was observed in IS, whereby, in the presence of CLBP, it was further intensified. We suggest considering fascial thickening as a potential contributing factor to both pain and limited motion in relevant 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 | 0.000 | 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".