The associations between executive functions and different aspects of perceived pain, beyond the influence of depression, in rehabilitation setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the relations between several aspects of Perceived Pain (PP) and different measurements of Executive Functions (EFs), above the influence of depression, in the context of medical rehabilitation. Eighty-one neurologically intact patients participated in this study in their sub-acute stage of recovery. Different aspects of EFs were assessed using the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), the Stop-Signal Test (SST) and the Digit Span Backward subtest of the WAIS-III (Span-B). Different aspects of PP were measured: Pain Disability Index (PDI), The Short-Form McGill Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). Depression symptoms were assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire. The results indicate that irrespective of the presence of depression, mental flexibility is correlated with pain disability and pain severity (WSCT – PDI partial correlation: r = −.23; p=.047, WSCT – SF-MPQ partial correlation: r = −.31; p = .006). Response inhibition is correlated with pain disability (SST – PDI partial correlation: r = .37; p = .001). Updating was not correlated with any of the PP aspects. These results remain much the same after removing the chronic pain patients from the analyses. The present study emphasizes the multidimensional nature of the term “perceived pain”, as well as the term “executive functions”, and the relations between them.
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 | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| 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".