Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acute low back pain (LBP) with or without radiculopathy(pain radiating down the leg[s]) is one of the most com-mon health problems in the United States and is the leading cause of disability for persons younger than age 45. The cost of evaluating and treating acute LBP runs into billions of dollars annually, not including time lost from work.1 Because of the high prevalence and high cost of dealing with this problem, government agencies have sponsored ex-tensive studies that are now part of the growing body of liter-ature on this subject. One of the earlier comprehensive studies was carried out in Quebec and was reported in the journal Spine in 1987.2 The US Department of Health and Human Services convened a 23-membermultidisciplinary panel of ex-perts to review all of the literature on this subject, grade it, and develop a “Clinical Practice Guideline, ” which was published in December 1994.3 States have also convened similar panels in recent years, largely because of the rapidly rising workers’ compensation claim burden being imposed on state budgets by LBP management.4 It is now clear from the above studies and others that un-complicated acute LBP is a benign, self-limited condition that does not warrant any imaging studies.5 Most of these patients are back to their usual activities within 30 days.1-3 The chal-lenge for the clinician, therefore, is to distinguish that small segment within this large patient population that should be evaluated further because of suspicion of a more serious problem. Indications of a more complicated status, often termed “red flags, ” include the following2,6: 1) Recent significant trauma, or milder trauma, age50 2) Unexplained weight loss
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 | 0.006 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.633 | 0.476 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".