The Role of Neuropsychological Performance in the Relationship Between Chronic Pain and Functional Physical Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In this study, the relationship between pain intensity, neuropsychological, and physical function in adult chronic pain patients was examined. DESIGN: Thirty participants with chronic pain completed neuropsychological tests tapping mental processing speed, memory, and executive function. Pain intensity was measured with three visual analog scales and the Pain Rating Index of the McGill Pain Questionnaire. A grip strength test, the 6-minute walk test, the Unipedal Stance Test and the Lifting Low Test were administered in order to obtain a performance-based measure of physical capacity. Self-reported physical ability was assessed with the Disability Rating Index and the Short Form-36 Physical Functioning, and Role Physical scales. Psychosocial function was examined using the Mental Health and Role Emotional subscales of the Short Form-36. SETTING: The study was set in two outpatient physical therapy clinics in The Netherlands. RESULTS: The analysis showed that a lower mental processing speed was related to a higher level of pain, as well as to a lower performance-based and self-reported physical functioning. In addition, both performance-based and self-reported physical function revealed an inverse correlation with pain intensity. Psychosocial function turned out to be an important mediator of the relationship between pain and self-reported, but not performance-based, physical function. Mental processing speed, on the other hand, was found to mediate the relationship between pain and performance-based physical functioning. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that in chronic pain patients, mental processing speed mediates the relationship between pain and physical function.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".