Observational studyThe Journal of manual & manipulative therapy2025
Use of machine learning to identify prognostic variables for outcomes in chronic low back pain treatment: a retrospective analysis.
Observational study in The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Potential applications of artificial intelligence in pain management: a scoping review.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Pooled it
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMost patients seen in physical therapy (PT) clinics for low back pain (LBP) are treated for chronic low back pain (CLBP), yet PT interventions suggest minimal effectiveness. The Cochrane Back Review Group proposed 'Holy Grail' questions, one being: 'What are the most important (preventable) predictors of chronicity' for patients with LBP? Subsequently, prognostic factors influencing outcomes for CLBP have been described, however results remain conflicting due to methodological weaknesses.
methodsThis retrospective observational cohort study examined prognostic risk factors for PT outcomes in CLBP treatment using a sub-type of AI. Bootstrap random forest supervised machine learning analysis was employed to identify the outcomes-associated variables.
resultsThe top variables identified as predictive were: FOTO™ predicted functional status (FS) change score; FOTO™ predicted number of visits; initial FS score, age; history of jogging/walking, obesity, and previous treatments; provider education level; medication use; gender.
conclusionThis article presents how AI can be used to predict risk prognostic factors in healthcare research. Improving predictive accuracy helps clinicians predict outcomes and determine most appropriate plans of care and may impact research attrition rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.