MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Stressful Experiences in Childhood and Chronic Back Pain in the General Population

2005· article· en· W1971658580 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jacek A. Kopec, Eric C. Sayre

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of Pain · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaArthritis Research Centre of CanadaResearch Canada
FundersMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalSocioeconomic statusChronic painPopulationDemographyBack painCohort studyProspective cohort studyNational Health Interview SurveyPhysical therapyGerontologyEnvironmental healthInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine if stressful experiences in childhood are associated with an increased risk of chronic back problems later in life. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study in the Canadian household population. Study participants were respondents to the first 3 cycles of the National Population Health Survey in Canada who were 18 years of age or older at baseline (n = 9552). Cases of chronic back pain during a 4-year follow-up period were ascertained with an interviewer-administered questionnaire. Stressful experiences in childhood were measured by an index consisting of 7 questions. RESULTS: In multivariate analyses, the risk of back pain was 1.17 (95% confidence interval 0.97-1.41) for 1 stressful event and 1.49 (95% confidence interval 1.21-1.84) for 2 or more events. The effect was consistent across subgroups defined by gender, socioeconomic status, and health status. Specific events associated with an increased risk included fearful experiences, prolonged hospitalization, and parental unemployment. DISCUSSION: Our study shows that persons reporting multiple stressful experiences in childhood are at increased risk of developing chronic back problems.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.348
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations69
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of PainSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207