Evaluation of kinesiophobia and pain level in physically disabled individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: An abnormal condition resulting from the absence or improper functioning of an organ in the body is called physical disability. Individuals with physical disabilities face mobility phobia and pain throughout their lives. Based on this hypothesis, this study was conducted to evaluate kinesiophobia and pain levels in physically disabled individuals. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted on 100 individuals with neurological and orthopedic disabilities between the ages of 10-83. The Tampa Kinesiophobia Scale and McGill-Melzack pain questionnaire were administered to the individuals and their kinesiophobia and pain levels were evaluated. Results: As a result of the study, it was observed that the majority of the individuals' pain was localized in the trunk (12.27% in the head, 33.74% in the trunk, 23.31% in the upper extremities, 30.67% in the lower extremities), they described the pain as tiring, and they were afraid of pain recurrence. Conclusion: As a result of the study, it was determined that individuals with physical disabilities face challenges related to pain in their daily lives and have concerns about experiencing pain again. Based on these findings, further research should be conducted to explore effective strategies for managing pain in this population. We believe that such research will contribute to the broader body of knowledge in this field.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".