MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321503849 · doi:10.1136/gpsych-2022-100895

Intermediary roles of prospective memory and retrospective memory in the comorbidity of depression and pain

2023· article· en· W4321503849 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeneral Psychiatry · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Functions and Memory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetrospective memoryComorbidityDepression (economics)Prospective memoryPsychologyPsychiatryMedicineClinical psychologyEpisodic memoryChildhood memoryCognitionEconomicsKeynesian economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it