Assessing Persistent Pain and Its Relation to Affective Distress, Depressive Symptoms, and Pain Catastrophizing in Patients with Chronic Wounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine pain experience among patients with chronic wounds, assess the utility of pain assessment scales for chronic wound-related pain, and determine the relation of wound-related pain to wound stage, affective distress, depressive symptoms, and pain catastrophizing. DESIGN: In this cross-sectional study of patients with a mix of chronic wounds (n = 69) recruited for a study evaluating a telemedicine system for assessing chronic wounds, 19 men (12 with spinal cord injury) with wound-related pain were identified. Questionnaires included the Numerical Pain Rating Scale, McGill Pain Questionnaire, Brief Symptom Inventory, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, and the catastrophizing scale of the Coping Strategies Questionnaire. RESULTS: The McGill Pain Questionnaire was more sensitive to pain experience than a single rating of pain intensity. Wound stage was positively related to severity of pain. Pain catastrophizing was positively related to pain intensity and higher levels of affective distress and depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Pain associated with chronic wounds is a significant clinical challenge for both patients and health practitioners.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".