Depression and associated factors in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the prevalence of depression and associated factors in patients (n = 100) with lumbar spinal stenosis selected for surgical treatment. METHOD: Depression was assessed with the 21-item Beck Depression Inventory. Psychological well-being was assessed with Life Satisfaction Scale, Toronto Alexithymia Scale and Sense of Coherence Scale. Physical functioning and pain were assessed with the Oswestry disability index, the questionnaire devised by Stucki and the Visual Analogue Scale. All questionnaires were administered before surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. RESULTS: Twenty percent of the patients with LSS were found to have clinically important depression. In univariate analyses, subjective disability measured with the Oswestry disability index, low sense of coherence and poor life satisfaction were common in depressed patients. In the multiple logistic regression analyses, being dissatisfied with life was associated with depression. When sense of coherence score was included in the model, then only low sense of coherence was independently associated with depression. Neither socio-demographic nor pain-related factors associated with depression. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically important depression is rather common among preoperative patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. The factors associated with depression are subjective disability of everyday living and decreased life satisfaction. A low sense of coherence is an important correlate of depression. The results underline the importance of assessing depression in clinical practice dealing with these patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".