The impact of depression and anxiety on pain reported by patients with rheumatoid arthritis undergoing treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study analyzed the joint pain of 46 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) undergoing treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD), for at least one year, and evaluated by pain intensity numeric scale and by the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), anxiety and depression by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). We compared them with 46 patients without RA matched by age and sex. We also examined the relationships between anxiety and depression and pain intensity, disease activity and physical dysfunction accessed by the Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index (RADAI) and the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), respectively. Most patients with RA, 93.5%, continued to report joint pain and had higher pain intensity and higher scores in all domains of the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) than 58.7% of the 46patients without RA with joint pain. Patients with RA were more likely to have depression defined by HADS≥11 than the controls but the association was non-significant when adjusted for the presence of pain. The median score of anxiety symptoms was significantly higher in patients with RA than in those without RA. There was an association of depression and a positive significant correlation of anxiety symptoms with higher intensity of pain, disease activity and physical dysfunction. There was no difference between patients with RA and depression and without depression on the sensory domain and in the total MPQ score. Otherwise, there was a moderate significant correlation of the levels of anxiety with all pain domains of the MPQ, except the sensory one. In conclusion, pain remains a prevalent symptom in RA patients despite treatment. More studies are necessary to verify if the qualitative assessment of pain could be used to evaluate the influence of anxiety and depression on pain reported by these patients.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".