Psychosocial factors associated with acute cervical radiculopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pain is an individual multi-dimensional experience, depending on contributions from the sensory, affective and cognitive dimensions. Only a few studies investigated the psychosocial factors associated with cervical radiculopathy (CR). These studies suggested that chronic CR affects functional abilities, emotional and cognitive states. This descriptive study determined (1) whether psychological factors were present, (2) the impact of pain on the ability to perform activities of daily living, and (3) the correlation between pain intensity, emotional state and functional abilities. The researcher, a physiotherapist, interviewed 21 subjects whose clinical diagnosis of acute CR made by a neurosurgeon [and confirmed with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)], to determine the cognitive dimension. Three standardized questionnaires, namely the Neck Disability Index (NDI), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression (HAD) Scale and the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ long form) were administrated to assess the pain intensity, emotional state, total pain experience and functional abilities. Central tendencies were determined by calculating the mean andmedian. The Spearman rank order correlation coefficient test was performed to establish correlations between variables.Results suggested that radicular pain is not only a sensory experience since altered emotional and cognitive stateswere present, which frequently influenced functional abilities. Correlations existed between functional abilities, emotional state and total pain experience, as well as anxiety and depression levels. Higher anxiety than depression levels were found. Thoughts on beliefs and coping strategies were affected. We concluded that clinicians should also address the psychosocial factors and consider the functional impact of the disease, during the assessment and management of acute CR.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".