RISK FACTORS OF LOW BACKACHE IN PATIENTS PRESENTING TO A TERTIARY CARE HOSPITAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: One of the most common health problems that result in physical disability include chronic low back pain (LBP). It badly affects the quality of life. Many musculoskeletal problems cause disability which include osteoporosis, rheumatoid arthritis, low back pain, and osteoarthritis. Low back pain has a lifetime prevalence of about 65% to 80%. In lower back pain, the area between gluteal folds and lower back pain is affected. It is divided into mechanical and inflammatory sub-types based on their nature. Objective: To identify various risk factors of lower back pain. Study Design: A cross-sectional descriptive analysis. Duration and place of study: This study was conducted in Sandeman Provincial Hospital, Quetta from July 2024 to July 2025. Materials and Methods: This research is a cross-sectional descriptive analysis which was performed in the our hospital. There were a total of 180 people involved in this study. All the participants that were involved in this research were those who had chronic mechanical back pain from a minimum of 3 months. The participants were aged from 18 years to 80 years. The Quebec disability index was used to assess a patient's disability. Patient health questionnaire-9 was used to assess a patient's depression. SPSS version 23 was used to analyse the results. Results: There were a total of 180 participants of this study. The participants were aged from 18 years to 80 years. The mean age was 55.45 years. The majority of the participants were male, representing 97.7% (n=176) of the total sample size. Conclusion: Low back pain is caused by many factors. Some of the factors associated with LBP are age, lack of regular exercise, sitting posture, lack of education, low income, and back trauma. Keywords: chronic low back pain, gluteal folds, Quebec disability, physical disability.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".