A comparison of anatomical pain sites from a tertiary care sample: Evidence of disconnect between functional and perceived disability specific to lower back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heterogeneity has been identified within chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) patient samples; however, investigations have typically focused on psychological constructs or coping (e.g., pain-related anxiety, catastrophizing) in this regard. Furthermore, studies to date have included either samples presenting with a specific anatomical site (e.g., only lower back pain) or a mix of anatomical sites (e.g., lower back, shoulder, or leg pain) as the primary pain complaint, without making comparisons based on the anatomical site of reported pain. For example, patients with chronic lower back pain (CLBP) may differ from those with chronic upper or lower extremity pain (ULEP) in presentation, recovery trajectory, and psychological variables. The current investigation explored whether systematic differences existed between patients participating in a multidisciplinary reconditioning third-party-payer program who have CLBP relative to patients with ULEP. Patients included those with CLBP (n=23; 35% women) or ULEP (e.g., arm, shoulder, leg, knee; n=28; 29% women). The ULEP group began and finished the program with more pain-related anxiety, more catastrophic thoughts, and more fearful cognitions than the CLBP group. There were no significant correlations between functional deficit and perceived levels of disability or associations between group and return to work status; however, there was an unexpected significant interaction between group and perceived disability. Specifically, CLBP patients reported increasing perceived disability despite improvements in functional deficit, whereas ULEP patients did not. These findings suggest a disconnect between perceived disability and function that may be specific to lower back pain. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".