Differentiating sensory and affective-sensory pain descriptions in patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging for persistent low back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study design is a cross-sectional survey with psychometric analysis. The objective is to determine the validity of a modified version of the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ). The SF-MPQ has been widely used to differentiate between reports of sensory and affective pain. The validity of this instrument to reflect independence between these constructs remains unclear. The SF-MPQ, the Roland-Morris Questionnaire (RM) and a measure of current pain intensity were completed by 373 patients undergoing lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Four hypothesized factor structures for the SF-MPQ (three 2-factor and one 1-factor solution) were tested using confirmatory factor analysis. A modified 2-factor solution (MSF-MPQ) containing 3 items labeled sensory and 5 items labeled affective-sensory had the best degree of fit. Correlations between factors were substantially lower for the modified 2-factor solution (0.48) than for previously described 2-factor solutions (0.88 and 0.92) indicating a higher degree of independence between these factors. Correlations with measures of pain intensity and the RM were significant, but slightly lower, for the subscales of the modified 2-factor solution (0.26-0.40) than for the subscales of the previously described 2-factor solutions (0.34-0.45). The MSF-MPQ can be used as a brief tool to differentiate the language used to describe pain in patients who are undergoing lumbar MRI. The evidence indicates that this clinical tool can be used to categorize how these patients describe their pain and potentially may be very valuable in determining the optimal course of treatment.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| 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".