Evaluating the effects of cognitive-behavioral group for chronic pain management in individuals with multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present studies focused on chronic pain conditions associated with multiple sclerosis (MS).The purpose of Study I was to provide a preliminary investigation into the feasibility of providing a lO-session group-based cognitive-behavioral treatment (CBT) for pain management for MS patients.Participants included eight individuals with MSrelated chronic pain.After participating in the intervention, nonsignificant decreases across all three outcome measures (pain severity, interference in daily activities due to pain, and affective distress) were observed.The primary purpose of Study 2 was to provide a more detailed evaluation of the same CBT group program using a single-case research design.After completing a baseline assessment period, the lO-week CBT treatment was introduced, which was followed by a four-week post-treatment assessment phase.A secondary purpose of Study 2 was to gather information on social support received by this group of MS patients and to explore relationships between social support and the three outcom.emeasures.Nine MS patients parlicipated in this study.Resultsfrom Study 2 indicated that individuals taking part in this CBT group may have experienced some benefits following participation.However, most of these benefits appeared to be in the area of affective distress.Furthennore, the statistically and clinically significant decreases in distress which were observed did not tend to appear until during the post-treatment assessment phase of the study.Contrary to the hypotheses made, there did not appear to be statistically or clinically significant changes on the measure of pain severity.Also, the majority of participants reported statistically and clinically signifrcant increases in interference due to pain during the treatment and post- treatment phases of this study.Although the results frorn the present research suggest that Evaluating the Effects
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".