Cognitive deficits in chronic pain patients, in a brief screening test, are independent of comorbidities and medication use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To describe and analyze cognitive aspects in patients with chronic pain and a control group without pain. Method A case-control study was conducted on 45 patients with chronic pain and on 45 control subjects. Data including pain diagnosis, comorbidities and medication used, were evaluated. Cognitive tests, such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Verbal Fluency Test, Clock Drawing Test and Stroop Test, were applied. Results Patients with chronic pain showed a poorer performance, as shown by the scores of the MoCA test (p < 0.002), Verbal Fluency Test (p < 0.001), Clock Drawing Test (p = 0.022) and Stroop Test (p < 0.000). Chronic pain variable (p = 0.015, linear regression model) was an independent factor for results obtained with the MoCA. Conclusion Patients with chronic pain showed a poorer performance in a brief screening test for cognitive impairment not related to confounding variables, as comorbidities and pain-medication use.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".