Associations between psychological factors, pressure pain thresholds and conditioned pain modulation and disability in (sub)-acute low back pain: a three-month follow-up study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The clinical presentation and pain experience of patients with (sub)-acute low back pain ((S)ALBP) can strongly vary in clinical practice. However, despite growing evidence that psychological factors are associated with disability in chronic pain conditions including low back pain, studies examining the influence of psychological factors, quantitative sensory testing (QST) (i.e. pressure pain thresholds (PPTs)) and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) on future disability are still lacking in (S)ALBP. OBJECTIVE: This prospective cohort study aims to determine associations between baseline psychological factors, PPTs and CPM in (S)ALBP and disability after 3 months. METHODS: Fifty-two patients with (S)ALBP underwent a baseline PPT evaluation in rest and during a CPM protocol. Patients were asked to fill in self-report questionnaires: the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS), the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK) and the Illness Perception Questionnaire - Brief version (IPQ-B). At 3-month follow-up, participants were asked to fill in the QBPDS again. Multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to determine associations between baseline factors and disability at follow-up. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients participated at follow-up. Because of the multicollinearity issue, the TSK score was selected for analyses and the PCS and IPQ-B score were excluded from the model. No significant associations between baseline factors and disability at follow-up were found. CONCLUSION: Neither baseline psychological factors nor PPTs or CPM in (S)ALBP were significantly associated with disability after 3 months. Our multiple linear regression analysis was likely underpowered to detect significant associations.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".