ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
A predictive model for classifying low back pain status based on lumbopelvic kinematics measured using inertial measurement units: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Bioengineering Innovations for Personalized Care in Low Back Pain: From Sensors to Smart Therapeutics.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of disability worldwide. Impaired lumbopelvic control contributes to chronic and recurrent LBP, often presenting as aberrant movement patterns. This study aimed to investigate whether inertial measurement units (IMUs) can classify individuals with no LBP (NoLBP), chronic LBP (CLBP), and a history of LBP (HxLBP) based on lumbopelvic kinematics.
methodsA total of 141 participants (47 per group) performed ten standardized lumbopelvic movement control tests while wearing IMU sensors. Kinematic parameters, including mean velocity (MV), peak-to-peak amplitude (P2P), and area under the curve (AUC) of acceleration, were extracted. One-way ANOVA was used to compare kinematic differences across groups, and binary logistic regression models were developed to identify predictors for classification. Robustness analyses using 10-fold cross-validation with the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) were also performed.
resultsSignificant group differences were found in MV, P2P, and AUC across multiple movement tests (P < 0.05). The most pronounced differences were observed between NoLBP and CLBP: individuals with CLBP were characterized by slower trunk flexion (odds ratio [OR] = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.90-0.98), greater AUC during prone hip rotation (OR = 2.78, 95% CI: 1.45-5.34), and greater P2P during trunk rotation (OR = 1.32, 95% CI: 1.12-1.55). Robustness analyses confirmed the robustness and stability of the classification models.
conclusionIMU-derived kinematic parameters provide objective measures of impaired movement control and may support clinical identification of individuals at risk for chronic or recurrent LBP.
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.