Dor, cinesiofobia e qualidade de Vida em pacientes com lombalgia crônica e depressão
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics of pain, kinesiophobia and quality of life in patients with chronic low back pain and depression. METHODS: Cross-sectional study in which 193 individuals with chronic low back pain were included. The presence of depression was measured by the Beck Depression Inventory, using a cutoff validated by the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview. The intensity and quality of pain in the groups with and without depression were assessed by the McGill Questionnaire. The Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia was applied to assess fear of movement. With respect to quality of life, the Medical Outcomes Study 36 was used. The statistical significance level was set at p <0.05. RESULTS: The prevalence of depression was 32.1%. The group with depression had worse scores in relation to pain, kinesiophobia and quality of life (physical functioning, rolephysical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role-emotional, and mental health. CONCLUSION: Patients with low back pain and depression had higher pain intensity, greater fear of movement and poorer quality of life. Level of Evidence III, Cross-sectional.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".