MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399285642 · doi:10.1097/pr9.0000000000001165

Trajectories of pain and depressive symptoms among people living with low back pain during the COVID-19 pandemic: a 24-month longitudinal study

2024· article· en· W4399285642 on OpenAlexaffabout
Adriana Angarita Fonseca, Mathieu Roy, Anaïs Lacasse, Guillaume Léonard, Pierre Rainville, Marie-France Marin, Iulia Tufa, Erika Lauren Gentile, M. Gabrielle Pagé

Bibliographic record

VenuePAIN Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
Canadian institutionsQuebec Rehabilitation Research NetworkUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité de SherbrookeMcGill UniversityCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalMcGill University Health CentreUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepression (economics)MedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Longitudinal studyDepressive symptomsLogistic regressionPandemicPhysical therapyPain catastrophizingChronic painPsychiatryAnxietyInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: We explored trajectories of pain intensity and depressive symptoms over the first 24 months of the pandemic in people with low back pain. Methods: This longitudinal study was conducted alongside the Quebec Low Back Pain Study. Starting in April 2020 and every 3 months until July 2022, 291 participants completed an online survey. Group-based trajectory modeling was used to identify patterns of pain intensity and depressive symptoms. Onset outbreak characteristics were then put in relation with trajectory groups using multivariate logistic regression. Results: The analysis revealed 5 trajectories of pain intensity and depressive symptoms, respectively. The pain trajectories were stable mild (n = 17, 5.8%); stable moderate (n = 103, 35.4%); stable severe (n = 81, 27.8%); U-shape (n = 24, 8.3%), and inverted U-shape (n = 66, 22.7%). The trajectories of depressive symptoms were stable none (n = 58, 19.9%); stable very mild (n = 61, 21.0%); stable mild (n = 85, 29.2%); stable moderate (n = 59, 21.7%); and severe slightly improving (n = 24, 8.3%). Pre-COVID everyday/nearly everyday pain, average pain intensity, and widespread bodily pain were predictive of pain trajectory groups. Higher pre-COVID depression, acute stress disorder, and lockdown measures-related stress were associated with moderate/severe depressive trajectories. Discussion: Our findings indicated relative stability of pain and depressive symptoms among participants during the COVID-19 pandemic but also highlighted subgroups of people who experienced temporary deterioration or improvement over the first months of the pandemic that then reverted back to baseline levels. Modifiable risk factors were identified before the onset of the pandemic, which could give preventive measures in targeted populations.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.344
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePAIN ReportsSame topicFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ResearchFrench-language works237,207