The Effects of Patient Resilience and Catastrophizing on Carpal Tunnel Surgical Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Outcomes following carpal tunnel release (CTR) are generally favorable. When patient satisfaction or symptom resolution is not as expected, understanding what factors contribute to that outcome could allow for strategies targeted at improving results. Our purpose was to determine if measurable mental health factors, specifically resilience and pain catastrophization, correlate with patients' postoperative outcomes following CTR. Methods: A prospective cohort study was performed. Ninety-four patients were recruited to take part in the study. Patients completed written consent, the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ), the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, and the Brief Resilience Scale. A single surgeon, or his resident under supervision, performed an open CTR under local anesthetic. Our primary outcome measure was a repeat BCTQ at 6 months. Pearson correlation coefficients and univariate analyses were performed to assess the correlation between Pain Catastrophizing Scale and Brief Resilience Scale scores and final BCTQ scores. Results: = .001). There was no correlation between patients' Pain Catastrophizing Scale or Brief Resilience Scale scores and 6-month BCTQ scores or the amount of improvement in the BCTQ at final follow-up. Conclusions: Most participants improved following CTR. Patients' self-assessed resilience, and the degree of pain catastrophization did no correlate with the amount of improvement patients had after surgery. Type of study/level of evidence: Prognostic II.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".