MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407106669 · doi:10.1111/jep.14299

Rehabilitation Management of Neck Pain—Development of a Diagnostic Framework Based on the Pain and Disability Drivers Management Model

2025· article· en· W4407106669 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Gérard, Florian Naye, Simon Décary, Pierre Langevin, Chad Cook, Yannick Tousignant‐Laflamme

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical therapyMedicineBiopsychosocial modelNeck painRehabilitationLikert scalePopulationChronic painDelphi methodPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAlternative medicinePsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RATIONALE: Neck pain is a major cause of disability worldwide, and current rehabilitation strategies show limited effectiveness. Subgrouping patients by their primary pain and disability drivers can help tailor treatments. At this end, the Pain and Disability Drivers Management (PDDM) was developed and has demonstrated preliminary effectiveness in the management of low back pain. Nevertheless, the PDDM model was only validated for this population. Adapting this framework to patients with neck pain would provide a more global view of the patient's experience of pain and support a genuine biopsychosocial intervention. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to develop and validate the content of the PDDM model for patients living with neck pain. METHODS: Through a modified DELPHI study design, participants with clinical and research expertize in rehabilitation of neck pain were invited to participate. A questionnaire was developed using literature reviews and endorsed by a steering committee. The relevance of each element of the newly adapted model was evaluated on a 4-point Likert scale. An item reached consensus if it obtained the predefined threshold of > 78% "relevant" and "very relevant." Participants left comments on terminology and recommended items to add in early rounds. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed. RESULTS: An invitation was sent to 1650 potential participants, from which 155 accessed the survey, 64 completed the first round and 55 the second round. A total of 70 elements met consensus and were distributed across six domains: "Nociceptive pain drivers", "nociplastic pain drivers," "drivers associated with neuropathic pain", "comorbidity drivers", "cognitive-emotional drivers" and "environmental or lifestyle drivers, and social determinants of health." CONCLUSION: Through a modified DELPHI study, the PDDM model was updated and adapted to people with neck pain. Subsequent steps include clinical integration and measures of efficacy when used for assessment/treatment.

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 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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.398 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evaluation in Clinical PracticeSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207