Treatment Expectations and Pain Experience in Dutch and Non-western Non-native Patients with Non-Specific
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have suggested that Dutch physiotherapists and non-native patients differ with regard to their clinical reality, including treatment expectations and pain experience. The majority of these studies were held from the physiotherapists ‟ point of view. This study focuses on treatment expectations, and pain experience of Dutch and non-western non-native patients with non-specific chronic low back pain, undergoing physiotherapy treatment. In addition to this, self perceived health status is also measured. The studies ‟ aim is to examine differences in clinical reality between Dutch and non-western non-native patients with non-specific chronic low back pain, from the patients ‟ point of view. Methods Treatment expectations were measured by a newly created questionnaire, containing 5 items. Each item consisted of a statement concerning treatment expectations, and a Likert-scale ranging from completely disagree – completely agree. Pain experience was measured as back pain disability by the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) and as pain intensity by three numeric-rating scales (NRSs), ranging from 0 (no pain) – 10 (worst pain imaginable). The Short-Form General Health Survey (SF-20) was used to measure self perceived health status.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".