Quality of life and functional capacity are adversely affected in osteoarthritis patients with neuropathic pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the neuropathic pain component of knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients and to investigate the relationship between neuropathic pain, disease stage, functional state, depression, anxiety, and quality of life. This study included 60 patients with knee OA. All demographic data and radiological results were recorded. Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Timed Up and Go Test, Chair Stand Test, Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), PainDETECT questionnaire, DN4 questionnaire, Short form-36 questionnaire, and Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale were performed for each patient. Neuropathic pain was detected in 66.7% of patients based on the PainDETECT scale and in 46.7% of patients based on DN4 scale. VAS-resting, OA grade, WOMAC scores, and SF-scores showed a significant difference in patients that detected neuropathic pain with PainDETECT (p<0.05). Based on the DN4 scale, patients with neuropathic pain had significantly higher WOMAC scores and significantly lower SF-36 scores (p<0.05). The PainDETECT questionnaire scores showed positive correlations with Timed Up-and-go Test, VAS-resting, WOMAC scores, Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale scores, and a negative correlation with all SF-36 scores (p<0.05). DN4 questionnaire scores showed a negative correlation with SF-36 scores and positive correlation with WOMAC scores (p<0.05). To conclude, it should be kept in mind that patients with knee OA who describe intense pain may have a neuropathic component involved in the clinical condition. Quality of life and functional capacity are adversely affected in patients with knee OA who have neuropathic pain. This should be taken into account while planning the treatment of these patients.
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 | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".