Associations between Combined Psychological and Lifestyle Factors with Pain Intensity and/or Disability in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is common in primary care, causing disability and economic burden globally. We aimed to compare socio-demographic, health, lifestyle, and psychological factors in people with and without CLBP and correlate them with clinical outcomes in people with CLBP. A total of 253 volunteers with and 116 without CLBP provided sociodemographic information, daily habits, medical history, subjective sleep complaints (Penn State Sleep Questionnaire), low back pain intensity, and disability (Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale), as well as the Zung Self-Rating Scale for self-assessment of depression and Self-Rating Anxiety Scale. CLBP diagnosis was linked with female gender and older age, as well as a higher level of sleep complaints such as sleepiness, OSA and insomnia symptoms, and a higher prevalence of moderate to severe depressive symptoms. The combination of moderate to severe depressive symptoms with obstructive sleep apnea or insomnia symptoms was the most important predictive factor for functional disability in CBLP patients (OR 13.686, 95% CI 4.581–40.885; p < 0.001). In conclusion, depressive symptoms and subjective sleep complaints appear to relate to greater CLBP intensity and/or CLBP-related disability in people with CLBP. A holistic approach is crucial for treating chronic CLBP patients, including psychological and sleep issue assessment and management, to improve their quality of life.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".