Pain and depression in injured workers and their return to work: A longitudinal study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette etude examine la relation a long terme entre la depression, la douleur et le retour au travail (RAT) chez les travailleurs accidentes et atteints de douleur chronique. Dans le cadre du Programme de Gestion de l'Activite Progressive (PGAP), la douleur et la depression chez des clients (N = 185) ont ete evaluees a trois points dans le temps: a l'inscription au programme, a la mitraitement et a la fin du traitement. Le retour au travail a ete evalue quatre semaines apres la fin de l'intervention. Les correlations et les analyses de regression logistiques ont montre que la depression et la douleur etaient associees de facon significative dans le temps et que la depression et la douleur affective etaient les variables les plus significatives pour predire le RAT et ce, quel que soit le moment de l'evaluation. Une analyse par grappes a divise l'echantillon en quatre groupes refletant ainsi les fluctuations de la depression et de la douleur dans le temps. Les resultats de Chi carre ont revele que les personnes atteintes d'un niveau de depression eleve ou modere ainsi que d'un niveau de douleur affective eleve etaient moins vraisemblables a effectuer un RAT (de 18 a 21 %) lorsque comparees a des personnes qui presentent une symptomatologie depressive legere ou absente accompagnee d'une douleur affective moins prononcee (de 61 a 85 %). Ces resultats ont mis en lumiere l'importance de considerer les profils de symptomes cliniques dans le temps lorsque l'on souhaite determiner la probabilite d'un RAT.
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 | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".