Tracking Cinical Care among Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: The Utility of Performance-based Measures of Physical Performance and Disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The objective was to describe the relationships between four physical performance (PP) tests and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) in chronic low back pain (cLBP). Methods: A cross-sectional and longitudinal cohort study of GLA:D® Back participants, with four PP measures (flexibility, endurance, sit-to-stand) pre-, post-program and ODI. Correlations and multiple regression described the relationship between ODI and the four PPs and for additional predictive ability of pre-program PPs. Results: Correlations between ODI and PP tests cross-sectionally were negative (-.2 to -.3), and much weaker (-.01 to -.17) for change. PP tests explained 17-18% of variance in ODI pre- and post. Variance explained in follow-up ODI was R2 = 0.514 using baseline ODI score and increased to 0.569 when adding PPs. Conclusions: While the four PPs had modest relationships with ODI, they added no additional predictive value for disability. PP measures when assessing individuals with cLBP should not be the only outcome utilized.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".