Psychological evaluation of low back pain patients at the university hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim of investigation: To investigate methods of psychological evaluation of Low Back Pain (LBP) patients. Methods: Participants were LBP patients in Departments of Admissions, Neurology, Neurosurgery at the University Hospital. The investigation was made in fixed three month period, all LBP patients divided into three groups: 1) after neurosurgical treatment; 2) before planned neurosurgical treatment; 3) before planned conservative treatment. Pain intensity and affective levels were examined using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS -Lithuanian version) and McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ-Lithuanian version). Cognitive-verbal responses were measured by originally standardized behavioral interview and by the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) Results: 91 LBP patients was examined ( 47 male, 44 female, 20 to 65 years old, mean - 45.44), and chronic pain (duration more 6 month) patients were 76.92 % among them. Intensity of LBP scored from 1 to 10 by VAS (mean -8.16), Quality of LBP investigated by MPQ-LV, and in 35.3 % cased scores were sensory based, in 50.0 % - affective based. MMPI assessment reveals that LBP patients have high scores for scales reflecting Hypochondriasis, Depression, Hysteria, Psychastenia. Data of behavioral interview suggest that pain persistence has high impact to quality of life: in 86.8 % in relation to affective disturbances, in 61.8 % - to lowed levels of communications, in 51.5 % -to changes in interpersonal relations with family and friends. Conclusion: Based on results the program of psychological evaluation of LBP patients to be included into diagnostic-treatment protocols will be determined.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".