Influence of psychological factors on patient-reported upper extremity disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disability reflects physical impairment and the influence of psychosocial factors. We investigated the relationship between disability and psychosocial factors in patients with upper extremity pathology. Ninety-two patients at a hand clinic were evaluated to assess disability, pain intensity, health status and psychosocial factors (pain catastrophizing, depression). Statistical analyses evaluated the relationships among disability and patient and psychosocial factors. Moderate levels of disability from all types of pathology were reported and associated with pain catastrophizing, pain and depression. Health status Short Form 36 domains were not correlated with disability as determined by Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) scores. A strong correlation was found between DASH and QuickDASH scores, but the QuickDASH scored significantly higher by 4 points. Pain catastrophizing was the strongest predictor of disability and explained 59% and 63% of variation in disability scores. Independent of pathology, those patients experiencing psychosocial issues, as well as demographic factors (i.e. employment status and age), were more likely to have disability with hand conditions and surgical procedures. We conclude from this study that psychological factors affect patient-reported outcomes. Level of evidence: IV
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".