High Pain Catastrophizing Scale Predicts Lower Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in the Foot and Ankle Patient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postoperative outcomes may be affected by the patient's preoperative morbidity. It is hypothesized that patient's pain catastrophization prior to foot and ankle surgery may affect their patient-reported outcomes. Methods: This study prospectively assessed a consecutive cohort of 46 patients undergoing foot and ankle reconstruction to describe the relationship between Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) and patient-reported outcomes measured by 12-item Short Form Health Survey and Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS). RESULTS: The 1-year postoperative FAOS pain, activities of daily living, and quality of life scores correlated significantly with all baseline PCS subcategories. We found that the mental domain of the SF-12 had a statistically significant correlation with the rumination and helplessness PCS subcategories. CONCLUSION: This study showed a significant association between a high preoperative PCS and a worse 1-year FAOS. As such, catastrophization could be screened for and potentially treated preoperatively to improve patient-reported outcomes in elective foot and ankle surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, Level III Evidence.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".