Intermediary roles of prospective memory and retrospective memory in the comorbidity of depression and pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients who suffer comorbidity of major depressive disorder (MDD) and chronic pain (CP) maintain a complex interplay between maladaptive prospective memory (PM) and retrospective memory (RM) with physical pain, and their complications are still unknown. Aims: We aimed to focus on the full cognitive performance and memory complaints in patients with MDD and CP, patients with depression without CP, and control subjects, considering the possible influence of depressed affect and chronic pain severity. Methods: According to the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the criteria given by the International Association of Pain, a total of 124 participants were included in this cross-sectional cohort study. Among them, 82 depressed inpatients and outpatients from Anhui Mental Health centre were divided into two groups: a comorbidity group(patients with MDD and CP) (n=40) and a depression group (patients with depression without CP) (n=42). Meanwhile, 42 healthy controls were screened from the hospital's physical examination centre from January 2019 to January 2022. The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-24 (HAMD-24) and Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) were used to evaluate the severity of depression. The Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale (PI-NRS), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire-2 Chinese version (SF-MPQ-2-CN), Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Basic Section (MoCA-BC), and Prospective and Retrospective Memory Questionnaire (PRMQ) were used to assess pain-related features and the global cognitive functioning of study participants. Results: The impairments in PM and RM differed remarkably among the three groups (F=7.221, p<0.001; F=7.408, p<0.001) and were severe in the comorbidity group. Spearman correlation analysis revealed the PM and RM were positively correlated with continuous pain and neuropathic pain (r=0.431, p<0.001; r=0.253, p=0.022 and r=0.415, p<0.001; r=0.247, p=0.025), respectively. Regression analysis indicated a significant positive relationship between affective descriptors and total BDI-II score (β=0.594, t=6.600, p<0.001). Examining the mediator pathways revealed the indirect role of PM and RM in patients with comorbid MDD and CP. Conclusions: Patients with comorbid MDD and CP presented more PM and RM impairments than patients with MDD without CP. PM and RM are possibly mediating factors that affect the aetiology of comorbid MDD and CP. Trial registration number: chiCTR2000029917.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".