Pain, disability and catastrophizing in individuals with knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Knee osteoarthritis is among the leading sources of chronic disability and may lead to depression, anxiety and pain catastrophizing, enhancing perceived pain. This study aimed at investigating the influence of pain catastrophizing on attitudes and perception of pain, and in the functionality of individuals with knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: This observational study involved 18 patients, who were assessed for weight and height, and completed the Pain-related Catastrophizing Thoughts Scale (PCTS), Survey of Pain Attitudes (SPA), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the visual analog scale (VAS). Symptoms and disability were assessed by the Lequesne Index, functional mobility was evaluated by the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test. Pressure pain tolerance thresholds (PPT) were assessed by a digital algometer. RESULTS: Mean body mass index of the sample was classified as obese (32,2±4,3). When split by the median of PCTS, differences were observed in most domains of SPA. Patients with more catastrophic thoughts took longer to perform TUG and presented more pain, joint stiffness and worse functionality (WOMAC). Despite the tendency to report more pain (VAS) in patients above the median score of PCTS, no differences were observed between groups with higher or lower catastrophizing regarding PPT. Positive and significant associations between the Rumination factor of PCTS and WOMAC outcomes were observed, as well as between the Hopelessness factor and TUG, Lequesne and WOMAC. CONCLUSION: The higher the presence of catastrophic thoughts, the worse the attitudes towards pain and the physical functionality of knee osteoarthritis 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".