Identifying chronic low back pain phenotypic domains and characteristics accounting for individual variation: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Interpatient variability is frequently observed among individuals with chronic low back pain (cLBP). This review aimed at identifying phenotypic domains and characteristics that account for interpatient variability in cLBP. We searched MEDLINE ALL (through Ovid), Embase Classic and EMBASE (through Ovid), Scopus, and CINAHL Complete (through EBSCOhost) databases. Studies that aimed to identify or predict cLBP different phenotypes were included. We excluded studies that focused on specific treatments. The methodological quality was assessed using an adaptation of the Downs and Black tool. Forty-three studies were included. Although the patient and pain-related characteristics used to identify phenotypes varied considerably across studies, the following were among the most identified phenotypic domains and characteristics that account for interpatient variability in cLBP: pain-related characteristics (including location, severity, qualities, and duration) and pain impact (including disability, sleep, and fatigue), psychological domains (including anxiety and depression), behavioral domains (including coping, somatization, fear avoidance, and catastrophizing), social domains (including employment and social support), and sensory profiling (including pain sensitivity and sensitization). Despite these findings, our review showed that the evidence on pain phenotyping still requires further investigation. The assessment of the methodological quality revealed several limitations. We recommend adopting a standard methodology to enhance the generalizability of the results and the implementation of a comprehensive and feasible assessment framework to facilitate personalized treatments in clinical settings.
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 | 0.011 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".