MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

427 Cognitive Function and Catastrophizing in the Adult Deformity Population: Single Center Series of 111 Patients

2023· article· en· W4327610642 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Justin Kemp Scheer, Austin Lui, John F. Burke, Chloe Jedwood, Albert Wang, Elaina Wang, Tony Catalan, Diana Chang, Bethany Belfield, Isabelle Thapar Thapar, Michael Safaee, Darryl Lau, Marissa Fury, Alekos A. Theologis, Aaron John Clark, Christopher P. Ames

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgery · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMontreal Cognitive AssessmentOswestry Disability IndexPhysical therapyPopulationPain catastrophizingInternal medicineLow back painCognitive impairmentChronic painDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Baseline cognitive impairment (CI) in adult spinal deformity (ASD) pts is unknown and may affect how they report PROMs/experience pain. Goal of this study was to determine baseline CI prevalence and how it’s related to PROMs/pain catastrophizing. METHODS: Single center prospective study. PROMs included the Montreal Cognitive Assessment(MOCA), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PainCS), back pain numerical score, Oswestry Disability Index(ODI), and Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS22) questionnaires. Pts were stratified by normal cognition (MOCA scores 26-30), mild CI (MOCA 18-25), moderate CI (MOCA 10-17) and Severe CI (MOCA <10). PainCS (higher = more catastrophizing) has total scor e(T,max = 52) and 3 subdomains (Rumination [R,max = 16], Magnification [M,max = 12], Helplessness [H,max = 24]). Comparisons were made between pts with normal (NORM) and any type of CI (CI) as well as correlations between MOCA and PROMS. MOCA scores were compared postop. RESULTS: Total 111 pts enrolled (mean age 64.1 ± 9.8 yrs, 57.5% F). Mean baseline MOCA score was 25.0±3.0 (mild CI, range 14-30), 59/111(53.1%) had mild/moderate CI. No severe CI. CI pts had significantly higher mean baseline PainCS-T, PainCS-R, and PainCS-M scores than NORM. CI pts had significantly worse baseline ODI (55.2 ± 15 vs 47.9 ± 14.4, p = 0.02) but better self-reported SRS Mental score (3.3 ± 1 vs 2.7 ± 0.8, p = 0.004) than NORM. Lower baseline MOCA scores significantly correlated with higher baseline ODI(r=-0.24,p=0.015), SRS Mental (r = -0.21, p = 0.037), current back pain (r = -0.26, p=0.006), and PainCS-R (r=-0.38, p<0.001), PainCS-M(r = -0.37, p < 0.001), PainCS-H (r = -0.27, p = 0.004), PainCS-T(r = -0.36, p < 0.001). Mean pre/postop MOCA scores were not significantly different (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline CI is frequent in ASD pts and associated with higher baseline pain/disability and pain catastrophizing compared to ASD pts with normal cognition. The CI persists postoperatively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurosurgerySame topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207