The associations of emotional health with pain, disability, and health‐related quality of life in patients with rotator cuff disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychosocial factors have been associated with poor outcomes in patients with rotator cuff disease. Emotional health is one of these factors, and relationships between emotional health and outcome measures evaluated before and after physical therapy have not been reported. AIM: To investigate the associations of baseline emotional health status with pre-treatment, post-treatment, and pre-to-post changes in pain, disability and health-related quality of life in patients with rotator cuff disease. METHODS: Forty-one patients with rotator cuff disease were included. Emotional health was measured with the emotions domain of the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC). The outcomes were the WORC-total, the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, and the numeric pain rating scale. All outcomes were measured at baseline and 6-week follow-up. RESULTS: The baseline emotional health score and the outcomes scores were moderate to strong, and weak to moderate correlated at baseline and at follow-up, respectively. There was no correlation between the baseline emotional health score and the changes in the outcome measures from baseline to follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Lower baseline emotional health status was associated with worse outcomes in pain, disability and health-related quality of life at baseline and follow-up in patients with rotator cuff disease. However, the changes in these outcome measures from baseline to follow-up were not correlated with the baseline emotional health status. In clinical practice, an assessment of patients' emotional health status using standardised measures may help to predict post-treatment outcomes, and a multidisciplinary cooperation (e.g., among physical therapists and psychologists) may enhance outcomes.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".