MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412173182 · doi:10.2519/josptcases.2025.0110

MRI Findings in the Lumbar Spine Following an Extreme Winter Ultramarathon: A Case Report

2025· article· en· W4412173182 on OpenAlexaff
Cléo Bertrand, Tristan Castonguay, Julie Lamoureux, Geoffrey Dover

Bibliographic record

VenueJOSPT Cases · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWinter Sports Injuries and Performance
Canadian institutionsCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLumbar spineLumbarMedicineSPINE (molecular biology)AnatomySurgeryBiologyBioinformatics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Ultramarathons are increasingly popular. Low back pain is common among ultramarathon racers, yet the effects of extreme endurance running on the lumbar spine are largely unknown. CASE PRESENTATION: We aimed to describe changes in the lumbar spine of 1 male athlete with chronic low back pain after completing a 610-km, 9-day winter ultramarathon. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was obtained before and after the race to evaluate intervertebral discs, facet joints, and paraspinal muscles from L1-L2 to L5-S1. OUTCOME: Postrace reductions in disc height and disc MRI T2 signal intensity were observed. Disc degeneration (Pfirrmann Grade IV) and early signs of disc desiccation were noted at L5-S1 and L4-L5, respectively. Increased facet joint effusion, decreased muscle cross-sectional area, and MRI fat-signal fraction were observed postrace at most levels. DISCUSSION: Minimal changes were observed in the lumbar spine of a single athlete, despite the extraordinary physiological demands of a 610-km winter ultramarathon. JOSPT Cases 2025;5(3):163-170. Epub 10 July 2025. doi:10.2519/josptcases.2025.0110

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0060.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJOSPT CasesSame topicWinter Sports Injuries and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207