Determination of cognitive status and influencing variables in patients with chronic neck pain: A cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate cognitive function in individuals with chronic neck pain (CNP) and investigate the effects of different variables on cognition. METHODS: The sociodemographic characteristics of the individuals who participated in this study were recorded. Pain intensity of the individuals was evaluated using the Visual Analog Scale, pain-related disability was evaluated with the Neck Disability Index and cognitive function was evaluated using Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). RESULTS: For this study, 95 patients with CNP were recruited. The mean age was 45.61 ± 11.14, and the median MoCA score was 24 (20-26), and 64.2% of the patients scored below the original cutoff (<26/30 points). The regression analysis showed that higher age and lower education levels were associated with lower MoCA scores. Education appeared to be the most influential variable. Younger participants (18-45) performed systematically better on naming, attention and language domains than their older counterparts (over 45). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that age and education play an important role in MoCA total and domain scores in these patients. While treating these patients, assessment of cognitive function can be useful for effective pain management.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".