Low back pain and radicular pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. COMPOSITION OF EXPERTS GROUPS 8 -- 1.1. LIST OF PARTICIPANTS TO THE WORKING GROUPS 8 -- 1.2. COMPOSITION OF THE STAKEHOLDERS GROUP 10 -- 1.3. COMPOSITION OF THE SUBCONTRACTOR’S EXPERT TEAM (KULEUVEN) 11 -- 1.4. COMPOSITION OF THE KCE EXPERT TEAM 11 -- 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 12 -- 2.1. DATABASES AND DATE LIMITS 12 -- 2.2. SEARCH STRATEGIES 12 -- 3. EXTRACTS OF THE LIME SURVEY 27 -- 4. DESCRIPTION OF THE PATHWAYS (INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON) 29 -- 4.1. GRONINGEN, THE NETHERLANDS 29 -- 4.1.1. Demographic information 29 -- 4.1.2. Identification and organizational items 29 -- 4.1.3. Patient Selection: 29 -- 4.1.4. Team composition and team members role 30 -- 4.1.5. Evidence and implementation process 31 -- 4.1.6. Triage and diagnosis 31 -- 4.1.7. Therapeutic actions 31 -- 4.1.8. Additional patient items 33 -- 4.1.9. Additional caregiver items 33 -- 4.1.10. Pathway monitoring 33 -- 4.2. NIJMEGEN, THE NETHERLANDS 34 -- 4.2.1. Demographic information 34 -- 4.2.2. Identification and organizational items 34 -- 4.2.3. Patient Selection: 34 -- 4.2.4. Team composition and team members role 35 -- 4.2.5. Evidence and implementation process 36 -- 4.2.6. Triage and diagnosis 36 -- 4.2.7. Therapeutic actions 36 -- 4.2.8. Additional patient items 38 -- 4.2.9. Additional caregiver items 38 -- 4.2.10. Pathway monitoring 38 -- 4.3. MAASTRICHT, THE NETHERLANDS 39 -- 4.3.1. Demographic information 39 -- 4.3.2. Identification and organizational items 39 -- 4.3.3. Patient Selection: 39 -- 4.3.4. Team composition and team members role 39 -- 4.3.5. Evidence and implementation process 40 -- 4.3.6. Triage and diagnosis 40 -- 4.3.7. Therapeutic actions 40 -- 4.3.8. Additional patient items 42 -- 4.3.9. Additional caregiver items 42 -- 4.3.10. Pathway monitoring 42 -- 4.4. SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA 43 -- 4.4.1. Demographic information 43 -- 4.4.2. Patient Selection: 43 -- 4.4.3. Team composition and team members role 43 -- 4.4.4. Evidence and implementation process 44 -- 4.4.5. Triage and diagnosis 44 -- 4.4.6. Therapeutic actions 45 -- 4.4.7. Additional patient items 45 -- 4.4.8. Additional caregiver items 45 -- 4.4.9. Pathway monitoring 45 -- 4.5. TORONTO, CANADA 46 -- 4.5.1. Demographic information 46 -- 4.5.2. Identification and organizational items 46 -- 4.5.3. Patient Selection: 46 -- 4.5.4. Team composition and team members role 47 -- 4.5.5. Evidence and implementation process 48 -- 4.5.6. Triage and diagnosis 48 -- 4.5.7. Therapeutic actions 48 -- 4.5.8. Additional patient items 49 -- 4.5.9. Additional caregiver items 49 -- 4.5.10. Pathway monitoring 49 -- 4.6. NORTH-EAST ENGLAND, UK 50 -- 4.6.1. Demographic information 50 -- 4.6.2. Patient Selection: 50 -- 4.6.3. Team composition and team members role 50 -- 4.6.4. Evidence and implementation process 51 -- 4.6.5. Triage and diagnosis 51 -- 4.6.6. Therapeutic actions 52 -- 4.6.7. Additional patient items 52 -- 4.6.8. Additional caregiver items 52 -- 4.6.9. Pathway monitoring 52 -- 4.7. LONDON (IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BRITISH PAIN SOCIETY PATHWAY), UK 53 -- 4.7.1. Demographic information 53 -- 4.7.2. Patient Selection: 53 -- 4.7.3. Team composition and team members role 53 -- 4.7.4. Evidence and implementation process 54 -- 4.7.5. Triage and diagnosis 54 -- 4.7.6. Therapeutic actions 55 -- 4.7.7. Additional patient items 56 -- 4.7.8. Additional caregiver items 56 -- 4.7.9. Pathway monitoring 56 -- 4.8. IRELAND, WATERFORD 57 -- 4.8.1. Demographic information 57 -- 4.8.2. Identification and organizational items 57 -- 4.8.3. Patient Selection: 57 -- 4.8.4. Team composition and team members role 57 -- 4.8.5. Evidence and implementation process 58 -- 4.8.6. Triage and diagnosis 58 -- 4.8.7. Therapeutic actions 58 -- 4.8.8. Additional patient items 59 -- 4.8.9. Additional caregiver items 59 -- 4.8.10. Pathway monitoring 59 -- 4.9. LAUSANNE, SWITZERLAND 60 -- 4.9.1. Demographic information 60 -- 4.9.2. Identification and organizational items 60 -- 4.9.3. Patient Selection: 60 -- 4.9.4. Team composition and team members role 60 -- 4.9.5. Evidence and implementation process 61 -- 4.9.6. Triage and diagnosis 61 -- 4.9.7. Therapeutic actions 62 -- 4.9.8. Additional patient items 63 -- 4.9.9. Additional caregiver items 63 -- 4.9.10. Pathway monitoring 64 -- 4.10. NÜRNBERG, GERMANY 64 -- 4.10.1. Demographic information 64 -- 4.10.2. Identification and organizational items 64 -- 4.10.3. Patient Selection: 64 -- 4.10.4. Team composition and team members role 64 -- 4.10.5. Evidence and implementation process 65 -- 4.10.6. Triage and diagnosis 65 -- 4.10.7. Therapeutic actions 66 -- 4.10.8. Additional patient items 67 -- 4.10.9. Additional caregiver items 67 -- 4.10.10. Pathway monitoring 67 -- 4.11. PLYMOUTH, UNITED STATES 68 -- 4.11.1. Demographic information 68 -- 4.11.2. Identification and organizational items 68 -- 4.11.3. Patient Selection: 68 -- 4.11.4. Team composition and team members role 68 -- 4.11.5. Evidence and implementation process 70 -- 4.11.6. Triage and diagnosis 70 -- 4.11.7. Therapeutic actions 70 -- 4.11.8. Additional patient items 70 -- 4.11.9. Additional caregiver items 70 -- 4.11.10. Pathway monitoring 71 -- 5. PATHWAYS FLOWCHARTS (INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON) 72 -- 6. BELGIAN INITIATIVES IN FLOWCHARTS 81 -- 7. FOCUS GROUPS MATERIAL 87 -- 7.1. FLYERS FOR PATIENTS 87 -- 7.2. INTERVIEW GUIDE 89
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.125 | 0.032 |
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".