Potential mediators of improvement in painful chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy via a web-based cognitive behavioural intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Preliminary evidence suggests that a self-guided cognitive and behaviourally-based pain management intervention (PROSPECT) is effective for chronic painful chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN), but its mechanism of action is unknown. The purpose of this secondary analysis was to explore if changes in anxiety, depression, sleep-related impairment, or fatigue mediated improvements in worst pain following PROSPECT in individuals with chronic painful CIPN. METHODS: Sixty participants were randomized to receive self-guided cognitive behavioural pain management (access for eight weeks) or treatment as usual. A seven-day worst CIPN pain diary and the PROMIS measures of anxiety, depression, fatigue, and sleep-related impairment were administered pre/posttest (eight-weeks). Causal mediation analysis was used to quantify mediators of worst pain improvement. RESULTS: None of the hypothesized mediators had a statistically significant effect on worst pain (n=38). IMPLICATIONS: Further research is needed to identify potential mediators of pain intensity that can be targeted by specific cognitive behavioural strategies to improve painful CIPN severity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".