MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7017727131

Brain Fog in Veterans with Pain Symptoms

2024· article· en· W7017727131 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueMacSphere (McMaster University) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsChronic painQuality of life (healthcare)Mental healthExploratory researchPain catastrophizingConfidence intervalActivities of daily living
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Veterans experience chronic pain at a rate twice higher than civilians. Brain fog (BF), a phenomenon of mental cloudiness associated with functional challenges in cognition, is one of the least studied symptoms of chronic pain. Pain interference, a construct of chronic pain, can limit participation with activities. Both BF and pain interference can disrupt quality of life (QoL) in Veterans by limiting health and meaningful participation. The relationship between BF and pain interference on QoL has not been investigated. Thus, the objective of this study is twofold: 1) understand the experience and 2) explore the impacts and the possible mitigation of pain interference of BF on the QoL, in Veterans with pain symptoms and BF. First, a qualitative descriptive method was employed using content and matrix analyses, to describe the impacts of brain fog on QoL in Veterans with BF and pain symptoms. The content analysis revealed the triggers, impacts, management strategies, and suggestions for healthcare professionals. The matrix analysis showed that women described difficulty managing BF with competing roles (e.g., motherly duties). Next, we conducted a cross-sectional study Veterans, exploring whether the perceived level of pain interference in Veterans with BF and pain symptoms affected measures of QoL. Results indicated Veterans with BF and high pain interference showed more mental health symptoms (p=0.003), and less perceived level of confidence with abilities (0.036) and physical health (p=0.003), than Veterans with BF and low pain interference. Post-hoc tests revealed no significant differences across gender. Next, to explore how QoL constructs we related, we performed an exploratory correlational analysis, revealing significant correlations between perceived level of confidence with abilities and 1) mental health (r=-0.48), 2) physical health (r=-0.44), and 3) functional cognition (-0.44). This study contributes to the overall knowledge of BF, guiding recommendations for the development of an assessment and research priorities.

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)0.000
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacSphere (McMaster University)→Same topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→