Neuropsychological deficits associated with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We sought to elucidate the existence of neuropsychological subtypes in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS). One hundred thirty seven patients with CRPS were administered tests that assess executive control, naming/lexical retrieval, and declarative memory. A 2-step cluster analysis that does not require any a priori specification regarding the number of clusters, classified patients into three groups. Group 1 obtained scores that were in the average range on all tests (n = 48; normal CRSP group). Group 2 (n = 58; dysexecutive CRSP group) presented with mild impairment or statistically low average test performance on working memory/verbal fluency tests. Group 3 (n = 31; global CRSP group) produced scores in the statistically low average/borderline range on all tests with particularly reduced scores on naming/declarative memory tests. Between-group analyses found that the CRPS group 1 obtained higher scores than CRPS groups 2 and 3 on all tests. However, groups 2 and 3 were equally impaired on executive tests. CRPS group 3 was impaired on tests of naming/memory tests compared to the other groups. Significant neuropsychological deficits are present in 65% of patients, with many patients presenting with elements of a dysexecutive syndrome and some patients presenting with global cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".