Pain-related threat and coordination in adults with chronic low back pain during a lifting task: A cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: People with low back pain (LBP) exhibit altered coordination, possibly indicating guarded movement. The connection between these changes and pain-related threat remains unclear. We aimed to determine if pain-related threat was related to spinal coordination and variability, during a lifting task, in people with chronic LBP. METHODS: Participants were adults with chronic LBP (n = 47). Upper lumbar, lower lumbar, and hipkinematics were measured during 10crate lifting/lowering repetitions. Coordination and variability of the Hip-Lower Lumbar, and Lower Lumbar-Upper Lumbar joint pairs were calculated. Pain-related threat was measured using the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, and task-specific fear. Linear regression analyses tested the relationship between pain-related threat and coordination. RESULTS: change < 0.064, p > 0.05). Exploratory t-tests revealed subgroups aligned with phenotypes of "tight" and "loose" control, where "tight" control was characterized by greater catastrophizing and disability. CONCLUSION: Pain catastrophizing, but not measures of fear, was related to more in-phase ("tight") Hip-Lower Lumbar coordination during lifting/lowering. Considering this relationship based on subgroups may add clarity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".