Effect of pain on activity and participation in individuals with unilateral lower-extremity amputation based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Amputation is a major life-changing event and is regarded as one of the loading causes of permanent disability. However, amputation often causes changes in painful and nonpainful sensory experiences. Pain after amputation has been shown to increase functional limitations caused by limb loss and lower quality of life. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the effect of pain on activity and participation in individuals with unilateral below-knee amputations according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: In the study, 64 individuals were divided into 2 groups: those who experienced pain and those who did not. Group 1 included 33 below-knee amputees who experienced pain (27 males, mean age 43.9 ± 12.6 years) and Group 2 included 31 below-knee amputees who did not experience pain (25 males, mean age 47.4 ± 12.1 years). The McGill Pain Questionnaire and visual analog scale were used to assess pain, the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility was used to assess activity, and the Reintegration to Normal Living Index was used to assess participation. RESULTS: Demographic characteristics of the 2 groups were statistically insignificant ( P > 0.05). The nonpainful group had significantly higher activity and participation scores than the painful group ( P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: It was found that phantom pain and stump pain in below-knee amputees limited activity and participation. It was also shown that phantom pain has a more negative effect on the activity level of individuals than stump 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".