Assessing the Association between Neurocognitive Performance and Quality of Life in Individuals with Chronic Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Chronic pain, a pervasive global health challenge, significantly impacts individuals' daily functioning and quality of life. This cross-sectional study explores the complex interplay between neurocognitive performance and quality of life in individuals experiencing chronic pain, recognizing the multifaceted nature of this phenomenon. Objectives Investigate the association between neurocognitive performance and chronic pain severity. Examine the relationship between neurocognitive deficits and different domains of quality of life in chronic pain. Methods: A diverse sample of 113 participants from Islamabad and Rawalpindi underwent correlational analysis. Neurocognitive performance was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), chronic pain severity was determined by pain history, and quality of life was measured using a validated scale. Demographic information was collected through an online survey. Results: The sample exhibited diversity in age, gender, and education. Pain history varied, with a majority reporting pain duration of 1-2 years. Neurocognitive performance, measured by MoCA, showed a mean score of 6.6 (±2.1), while the Quality of Life Scale yielded a mean score of 82 (±15). Correlation analysis revealed a weak negative association between neurocognitive performance and quality of life, though statistically non-significant (p = .279). Similarly, the correlation between pain history duration and neurocognitive performance was minimal and non-significant (p = .757). Conclusion: Contrary to expectations, the study did not find a significant correlation between neurocognitive performance and quality of life in individuals with chronic pain. The nuanced relationships observed highlight the complexity of chronic pain experiences, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive understanding that goes beyond the traditional pain-cognition paradigm. Tailored interventions should consider individual differences and address diverse cognitive and psychosocial factors, aiming to improve the overall well-being of those navigating the challenges of chronic pain.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".