Cognitive dysfunction in patients over 60 with non- specific chronic low back pain: A cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although few studies in recent years have indicated a relationship between chronic low back pain (CLBP) and cognitive impairment, clear evidence is lacking, emphasizing the need for further research in this area. This study aimed to investigate the frequency of cognitive dysfunction and associated factors in patients over 60 with non-specific CLBP. Methods: A total of 107 consecutive participants, including 57 patients with nonspecific CLBP and 50 healthy controls matched for age, sex, and education, were enrolled in this prospective, cross-sectional, controlled study. Cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Standard Mini- Mental Test (SMMT). Pain and fatigue severity was measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), while depression, pain catastrophizing, functional disability, and quality of life were evaluated using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) respectively. Results: The CLBP group showed significantly lower cognitive performance than the control group (p < 0.001). Significant impairments were observed in visuospatial abilities, attention, and executive functions. Beck Depression Inventory, PCS, and RMDQ scores were significantly higher in the CLBP group (p < 0.001), while SF-36 scores and sleep quality were notably lower (p < 0.001 for all). Conclusions: Chronic low back pain patients exhibit significant cognitive impairments, higher levels of depression, pain catastrophizing, and functional disability, along with a lower quality of life. These findings emphasize the importance of incorporating cognitive and psychological evaluations into the multidisciplinary management of CLBP. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT06278467
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".