Sex matters in complex regional pain syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is much more prevalent in women than men but potential differences in clinical phenotype have not been thoroughly explored to date. Differences in the clinical presentation between sexes may point at new avenues for a more tailored management approach of CRPS. We therefore explored if in CRPS, the patient's sex is associated with differences in clinical and psychological characteristics. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study of 698 CRPS patients (599 females) fulfilling the Budapest clinical or research criteria, CRPS signs and symptoms, CRPS severity, pain (average pain intensity in the previous week and McGill pain rating index), pain coping (Pain Coping Inventory), physical limitations (Radboud Skills Questionnaire (upper limb), Walking and Rising questionnaire (lower limb)), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale) and kinesiophobia (Tampa scale for kinesiophobia) were evaluated. RESULTS: Male CRPS patients used more often extreme words to describe the affective qualities of pain, used more passive pain coping strategies, and were more likely to suffer from depression and kinesiophobia. CONCLUSION: Sex-related differences are present in CRPS, but the effect is generally small and mainly concerns psychological functioning. A greater awareness of sex-specific factors in the management of CRPS may contribute to achieving better outcomes. SIGNIFICANCE: What is known? Nonsex-specific clinical data of CRPS patients. What is new? Male CRPS patients used more often extreme words to describe the affective qualities of pain, used more passive pain coping strategies, and were more likely to suffer from depression and kinesiophobia.
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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".