Long-term outcomes after a functional restoration program for non-specific chronic low back pain: A 10-year longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a scarcity of data on the long-term evolution of patients after functional restoration for non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP). Therefore, this longitudinal study investigated overall improvement and other sociodemographic and clinical parameters in patients with NSCLBP within 10 years of participating in a functional restoration program. METHODS: Functional restoration was undergone in a French university hospital between 2009 and 2011. Patients were evaluated at the inclusion, the end of the program, three months, 12 months, and 10 years. The primary outcome of the study was the overall improvement in the 10 years following functional restoration. There were multiple secondary outcomes (e.g., the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale [QBPDS] and return to work). Changes over time were assessed using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: The study included 51 patients (mean [SD] age 45.6 [8.3] years; 54.9% women; 66.7% employees or workers; and 66.7% full or part-time work disability). The percentage of overall improvement was 76.5% at 10 years (versus 92.0% at the end of the program; P-value < 0.050). The QBPDS score improved from a mean score of 43.2 at inclusion to 32.2 at 10 years (P-value<0.001). Finally, return to work occurred in more than half of patients with work disability at three months (62.5%) and 10 years (60.0%), and this return was stable over time (P-value not significant). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with NSCLBP had favorable outcomes up to 10 years after functional restoration. Further data are needed to corroborate the present findings.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".