The state of psychological resources in patients with chronic dorsalgia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Basic personality parameters include introversion-extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism. When chronic pain occurs, a change in the psychoemotional state of patients is noted. Quite often this occurs in the case of chronic nonspecific back pain — in chronic dorsalgia. There are different aspects of the impact on human life. The emerging neurological manifestations, motor and sensory, are accompanied by a disorder in the ability to perform daily and professional skills. At the same time, the phenomena of sensory modality (pain, paresthesia, synestopathy), caused by organic and functional reasons, significantly deteriorate the prognosis, disrupt emotional and adaptive functioning, and affect the quality of sleep. The ability to assess different aspects of the clinical «consequences» of chronic pain phenomena in dorsalgia improves their diagnosis and treatment. Purpose of the study — to evaluate psychological resources (personality traits, goals and meaningfulness, life guidelines, attitude to pain) in patients with chronic dorsalgia. Materials and methods. In a prospective controlled study in patients with chronic pain of the lumbosacral localization, the test data on the state of psychological resources were analyzed. The results of the examination of 66 patients aged 23–56 years were studied. In the presented sample, the following were used: LSS Methodology — the test of meaningful life orientations; the Big Five test by R. McCrae and P. Costa [1]; McGill questionnaire — a method for determining the level of pain syndrome; theTampa Scale — a method for measuring kinesiophobia [2]. Results. Based on the results of the use of the tests that assess personality parameters and psychological resources, the features of manifestation in chronic dorsalgia were established. When assessing the scales of meaning-to-life orientation, an emotionally rich emotional and personal sphere was found in both women and men. Gender differences on the «Life Performance» scale in the section on satisfaction with self-realization, the assessment of the period of life passed was higher in men (25.46 ± 4.30). At the same time, the general indicator of the meaningfulness of life was 28.6 points for men and 45.6 — for women. The assessment of test results using the Big Five questionnaire sets comparable parameters for men and women in the section of emotional stability (21.6 and 22.17, respectively) with a significant difference from the generally accepted assessment results in the population — 28 points. In the block for assessing the level of extraversion, similar values were also observed: significantly higher scores for men (30.0) and 27.64 — for women, which in comparison with the norm had a lower value (31 points). When analyzing the McGill pain assessment questionnaire, significantly higher scores for the sensory component were found in women than in men in the sample (16.8 and 12.1 points, respectively). The methodology for assessing the level of kinesiophobia by the Tampa scale established high values for testing according to the total index of kinesiophobia — more than 40 points: 43.7 points for women and 37.8 points for men. Conclusion. The features of personality parameters in patients with chronic dorsalgia indicate that high parameters of meaningfulness of life are diagnosed (there are not high parameters in the block «goals in life», the level of control «life process» — emotional and psychological satisfaction will remain quite significant). Locus of control «I» allows to express an opinion on a sufficient level of assessment of the idea of personality traits and the ability to control the state of one's disease. Control capabilities in the «Locus of Control — Life» testing block indicate the ability to make decisions and influence life processes. The emerging manifestations of chronic dorsalgia have certain characteristics of the course and personal resources in women and men with a more significant criterion «Emotionality» among women. Despite the long-standing component of the existing pain as the leading aspect of the disease, there is a significantly predominant sensory component in both men and women.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".