114 Pain and objectively measured cognitive performance in adults with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Pain and cognition are important symptoms in multiple sclerosis (MS). Cognitive processes contributing to pain experience are increasingly documented. Any relationship between pain and objectively measured cognitive performance (OMCP) in MS, including potential mediating factors such as fatigue and medication, remains unclear. Understanding this relationship may facilitate targeted treatment strategies. Objective Determine the relationship between pain and OMCP in MS. Methods We conducted a systematic review, following a pre-registered protocol, of clinical studies examining relationships between pain and OMCP in MS. We searched MEDLINE, Embase and PsychInfo. We assessed confounders and described findings using neuropsychologist-assigned cognitive domains. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results 10 studies were included. Eight studies identified a relationship between pain and OMCP. In six studies, worse pain scores were associated with worse cognition. However, no evidence was available for several cognitive domains. Studies infrequently controlled for confounders. Most studies were judged to be at risk of bias. Conclusions While several studies suggest that pain in MS is related to worse objective cognitive perfor- mance, conclusions are limited by study design and limited evidence in many cognitive domains. Future studies should better establish this relationship and delineate the neurological substrate underpinning it.
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 | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".