Embed Notice

HTML Code

<blockquote style="position: relative; padding-left: 55px;"><section><a href="https://fediscience.org/users/ct_bergstrom/statuses/109969513294968689">Carl T. Bergstrom (ct_bergstrom@fediscience.org)'s status on Monday, 06-Mar-2023 18:29:58 JST</a><a href="https://fediscience.org/@ct_bergstrom" title="ct_bergstrom@fediscience.org"><img src="https://gnusocial.jp/avatar/64543-48-20230504133201.webp" width="48" height="48" alt="Carl T. Bergstrom" style="position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0;">Carl T. Bergstrom</a><div><a href="https://fediscience.org/@ct_bergstrom/109969494398003134" rel="in-reply-to">in reply to</a></div></section><article><p>Let's look at that citation.</p><p>The cited paper has nothing to do with the claims that baby bear is associating with it.</p><p>It's not a paper about spinal evolution in our hominin ancestors, it's a paper about back pain in modern human history.</p><p>Once again, large language models don't have underlying knowledge models, and in their current forms don't even understand the relations among documents. </p><p>Why anyone would think this makes for a good search engine is beyond me.</p><p><a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2533783/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2533783/</a></p></article><footer><a rel="bookmark" href="https://gnusocial.jp/conversation/1286827#notice-2691507">In conversation</a><time datetime="2023-03-06T18:29:58+09:00" title="Monday, 06-Mar-2023 18:29:58 JST">Monday, 06-Mar-2023 18:29:58 JST</time> <span>from <span><a href="https://fediscience.org/@ct_bergstrom/109969513294968689" rel="external" title="Sent from fediscience.org via ActivityPub">fediscience.org</a></span></span><a href="https://fediscience.org/@ct_bergstrom/109969513294968689">permalink</a><h4>Attachments</h4><ol><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/148348">Untitled attachment</a></label><br></li><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/780636">An historical perspective on low back pain and disability
D B Allan 1, G Waddell
Affiliations expand
PMID: 2533783 DOI: 10.3109/17453678909153916
Abstract
This review of low back pain and sciatica over the past 3500 years tries to put our present epidemic of low back disability into historical perspective. Backache has affected human beings throughout recorded history (Table 1). What has changed is how it has been understood and managed. Two key ideas in the nineteenth century laid the foundation for our modern approach to backache: that it came from the spine and that it was due to injury. Backache had always previously been considered a rheumatic condition. Only from that time were backache and sciatica considered and treated together. Their management was increasingly dominated by the new orthopedic principle of therapeutic rest. What is new is chronic disability due to simple backache. Apart from rare cases, this only began to appear in the late nineteenth century. It escalated after World War II. It appears to be closely related to changed understanding and management of backache: specifically to the idea that backache is due to serious spinal injury or degeneration and to medical prescription of rest. This is reinforced by the improved social support which makes rest possible. Sadly, we must conclude that much low back disability is iatrogenic.</a></label><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/system/media_attachments/files/109/969/514/513/047/575/original/bce0aab05eb34f2d.png" rel="external">https://fediscience.org/system/media_attachments/files/109/969/514/513/047/575/original/bce0aab05eb34f2d.png</a></li></ol></footer></blockquote>

Corresponding Notice

Embed this notice
Carl T. Bergstrom (ct_bergstrom@fediscience.org)'s status on Monday, 06-Mar-2023 18:29:58 JST Carl T. Bergstrom
in reply to
Let's look at that citation.
The cited paper has nothing to do with the claims that baby bear is associating with it.
It's not a paper about spinal evolution in our hominin ancestors, it's a paper about back pain in modern human history.
Once again, large language models don't have underlying knowledge models, and in their current forms don't even understand the relations among documents.
Why anyone would think this makes for a good search engine is beyond me.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2533783/
In conversationMonday, 06-Mar-2023 18:29:58 JST from fediscience.orgpermalink
Attachments
1. Untitled attachment
2. An historical perspective on low back pain and disability D B Allan 1, G Waddell Affiliations expand PMID: 2533783 DOI: 10.3109/17453678909153916 Abstract This review of low back pain and sciatica over the past 3500 years tries to put our present epidemic of low back disability into historical perspective. Backache has affected human beings throughout recorded history (Table 1). What has changed is how it has been understood and managed. Two key ideas in the nineteenth century laid the foundation for our modern approach to backache: that it came from the spine and that it was due to injury. Backache had always previously been considered a rheumatic condition. Only from that time were backache and sciatica considered and treated together. Their management was increasingly dominated by the new orthopedic principle of therapeutic rest. What is new is chronic disability due to simple backache. Apart from rare cases, this only began to appear in the late nineteenth century. It escalated after World War II. It appears to be closely related to changed understanding and management of backache: specifically to the idea that backache is due to serious spinal injury or degeneration and to medical prescription of rest. This is reinforced by the improved social support which makes rest possible. Sadly, we must conclude that much low back disability is iatrogenic.
  https://fediscience.org/system/media_attachments/files/109/969/514/513/047/575/original/bce0aab05eb34f2d.png

Public

Embed Notice

HTML Code

Corresponding Notice