Association between psychosocial factors and mental health symptoms to cervical spine pain with or without radiculopathy on health outcomes: systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cervical spine pain with or without radiculopathy (CSp ± R) has significant negative impacts to a person's quality of life. Psychosocial factors and/or mental health symptoms are associated with spinal pain with or without radiculopathy and negatively impact health outcomes. This area of research is not yet established for CSp ± R. Our objective is to conduct a systematic review assessing the association between psychosocial factors and/or mental health symptoms and health outcomes in adults with CSp ± R. METHODS: A systematic electronic search of 3 online databases will retrieve studies in which adults (older than 18 years) with CSp ± R, assessing how psychosocial factors or mental health symptoms impact outcomes related to disability, pain, and/or healthcare utilisation. Data extracted will include study design, CSp ± R definition, psychosocial and/or mental health symptoms, and health outcomes. Reporting study quality through the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Scale Assessment and certainty through Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations will be completed. Studies will be assessed from a clinical perspective, methodology design, and statistical testing to determine whether studies can be pooled for meta-analysis. If there is significant clinical heterogeneity, narrative description will be undertaken. PERSPECTIVE: This will be a comprehensive synthesis review to enhance understanding of the association of psychosocial factors and/or mental health symptoms and CSp ± R on health outcomes. The findings will support the formulation of prognosis, collaborative management decisions, and guide healthcare resources to improve outcomes for this patient group. The review will identify gaps in research, thereby informing future experimental and observational study design.
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 | 0.051 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.007 |
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".