Influence des profils comportementaux d’adaptation à la douleur sur les résultats de patients atteints de lombalgie chronique participant à un programme de restauration fonctionnelle du rachis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is a multifactorial condition often influenced by psychosocial factors. Recent research has highlighted patient phenotyping as a valuable approach to guide individualized rehabilitation strategies. The Back Pain Behavioral Profile (BP2) questionnaire identifies behavioral profiles that may help inform more tailored and targeted rehabilitation interventions. Objective: To evaluate whether behavioral pain-coping profiles, as identified by the BP2 questionnaire, influence functional, psychological, and clinical outcomes in patients with cLBP undergoing a functional rehabilitation program (FRP). Methods: This retrospective monocentric study compared three behavioral profile groups of patients with cLBP. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years, LBP duration ≥ 6 months, failure of well-managed medical care, no chirurgical indication. Non-inclusion criteria were any cardiological, pulmonary or orthopedic contraindication, active neoplasia, lack of motivation, and pregnancy. Exclusion criteria were dropped out before end-of-program, uncompleted data concerning the BP2, primary and secondary outcomes in medical files. All patients underwent the same multidisciplinary FRP combining physical, psychological, and educational components. Functional, psychological, and clinical assessments were conducted at baseline and at the end of the program, including physical performance tests and self-reported questionnaires. The primary outcome was the change in functional status, measured by the evolution of the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS). Secondary outcomes included changes in psychological scores and clinical performance tests. Results: 64 patients were included in the final analysis: 9 patients in the kinesiophobia group, 19 in the emotional distress group, and 36 in the effective coping group. Improvements were observed in all functional, psychological, and clinical measures across the total population. Each behavioral profile group showed within-group improvements in QBPDS scores. No differences in progression were observed between the groups across all pain scores, functional scores, and clinical tests. Conclusions: The FRP proved effective across all behavioral profiles, supporting the value of a multidisciplinary approach. This study did not demonstrate any influence of behavioral pain-coping profiles on functional, psychological, or clinical outcomes in patients with chronic low back pain undergoing a functional rehabilitation program.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".