P01-265 - Chronic Low Back Pain in Chronic Combat Related Posttraumatic Stress Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Chronic pain disorders have been accepted as one of major comorbid disorder in chronic posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The main purpose of this research was to evaluate subjective processing of the pain in war veterans suffering from chronic PTSD and low back pain. Methods 227 Croatian war veterans participated in this study. Based on their personal history, psychiatric and surgical assessment they were divided in three groups: subjects suffering from PTSD and chronic low back pain (N=88), subjects suffering from chronic low back pain (N=50) and healthy controls (N=89). The following questionnaires were used in assessment of PTSD, depressive disorders and pain: Trauma Symptom Inventory, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire. Results We have shown the significant differences between three groups. The group of PTSD patients experience the higher level of the intensity of pain and have an altered perception of pain complaining more of the affective and sensory pain than the group suffering from the chronic low back pain only. Both groups suffering from pain show depressive pattern rather than the the control group. We have shown that the affective and sensory pain is in the strong positive correlations with the specific PTSD symptoms and depression. Conclusion Patients suffering from PTSD seem to have an altered processing of the pain, especially the affective component of pain, probably because of functional pain disorders in many those patients. However, the neurobiological mechanism is needed to thoroughly understand the processing of pain in chronic PTSD.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".