Psychological and immunological associations with movement-evoked low back pain among older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Low back pain (LBP) is a leading global factor in disability among older adults. Movement-evoked pain (MEP) is potentially an important mediator in the disability pathway but is predominantly tested in the laboratory. Objectives: We aimed to explore MEP in the natural environment ("daily" MEP) and its correlation with laboratory MEP, along with potential psychological and immunological influences. Method: Thirty-five older adults with persistent LBP attended a single laboratory session. Pain catastrophizing, pain-related fear of movement, and pain self-efficacy were measured by questionnaire. Resting inflammation and inflammatory reactivity to painful movement were evaluated using serum interleukin-6, tissue necrosis factor alpha, and C-reactive protein (CRP). Laboratory MEP was defined by aggregate pain intensity with a movement provocation test. Daily MEP was measured for the next 7 days using ecological momentary assessment. Results: ] = 0.266) and interleukin-6 (g = 0.433) demonstrated small to moderate reactivity to painful movement. After controlling for age and multimorbidity, pain catastrophizing and pain self-efficacy explained 24% to 37% variance in laboratory and daily MEP. Resting inflammatory markers were not associated with MEP; however, C-reactive protein reactivity to painful movement explained 19% to 25% variance in laboratory and daily MEP. Conclusion: Preliminary indication is that laboratory and daily MEP may be proxy measures for one another, and that MEP is influenced by psychological and immunological factors. Future studies will aim to (1) validate findings among older adults with persistent LBP and (2) for clinical phenotyping, clarify complex relationships among psychological and immunological factors with disability pathway components like MEP.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".