Executive Functioning in Females Living With Chronic Pelvic Pain: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is a musculoskeletal condition that is treated by physiotherapists. CPP refers to constant or intermittent pain in the pelvic region lasting at least 6 months in duration. Despite links between other chronic pain conditions and impaired executive functioning (EF), the relationship between CPP and EF has not been examined. Objectives: To examine (1) the feasibility of recruitment, retention of potential participants, and virtual data collection to discover; (2) whether EF assessment measures suggest the presence of EF impairment in participants living with CPP; and (3) how self-reported scores on pain catastrophizing, central sensitization, depression, anxiety, and stress among those living with CPP compare with normative data. Study Design: In this cross-sectional pilot study, participants were included if they self-identified as a female, reported living with CPP, and were 18 to 40 years of age. Method: Virtual interviews were conducted to administer the Central Sensitization Inventory, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, short version of the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale, Oral Trail-Making Test, a phonemic verbal fluency FAS test, and the Executive Skills Questionnaire-Revised. Results: A total of 35 people participated in the study (60.34% of all interested potential participants). When compared with normative data, participants displayed difficulties on the verbal fluency FAS test and the Executive Skills Questionnaire-Revised. Conclusion: It is feasible to recruit and retain participants using virtual interviews to study EF in females living with CPP. Some assessment measures of EF indicated the presence of impairment. Central sensitization, catastrophizing, depression, anxiety, and stress scores were high.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".