Risk Factors and Diagnostic Model Construction of Chronic Pain with Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cognitive impairment (CI) is frequently observed in patients with chronic pain (CP). CP progression increases the risk of dementia and accelerates Alzheimer’s disease pathogenesis. However, risk diagnostic models and biomarkers for CP-related CI remain insufficient. Previous research has highlighted the relationships between several complete blood count parameters for CP or CI-related diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease, while the specific values of complete blood count parameters in CP-related CI patients remain unclear. This study aimed to explore the correlation between complete blood count parameters and CP-related CI to establish a risk diagnostic model for the early detection of CP-related CI. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted at West China Hospital, Sichuan University. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was used to classify patients into either the CP with CI group or the CP without CI group. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to screen the related factors of CP-related CI for constructing a risk diagnostic model, and the model was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Results: The study ultimately included 163 eligible patients. Based on analysis, age (OR, 1.037 [95% CI, 1.007– 1.070]; P =0.018), duration of pain (OR, 2.546 [95% CI, 1.099– 6.129]; P =0.032), VAS score (OR, 1.724 [95% CI, 0.819– 3.672]; P =0.153), LMR (OR, 0.091 [95% CI, 0.024– 0.275]; P < 0.001), absolute neutrophil value (OR, 0.306 [95% CI, 0.115– 0.767]; P =0.014), and lymphocyte percentage (OR, 6.551 [95% CI, 2.143– 25.039]; P =0.002) were identified as critical factors of CP-related CI. The diagnostic model was evaluated by the ROC curve, demonstrating good diagnostic value with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.803, a sensitivity of 0.603 and a specificity of 0.871. Conclusion: The risk diagnostic model developed in this study for CP-related CI has significant value and enables clinicians to customize interventions based on each patient’s needs. Keywords: cognitive impairment, chronic pain, diagnostic model, complete blood count parameters, risk factors
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 | 0.022 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".