Age-related differences in the qualities but not the intensity of chronic pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Age differences in the experience of chronic pain remain unclear. A serious barrier to progress in the field of pain and aging arises from the lack of data regarding the psychometric properties of pain scales for use with the elderly. The present study was designed to assess age differences in pain intensity and quality and to compare the psychometric properties of the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) in young and elderly chronic pain patients. Young (n=139, mean age=42.93+/-9.41 years) and elderly (n=139, mean age=70.12+/-7.51 years) pain center patients, matched on primary diagnosis or pain location, duration, and sex, completed the MPQ, numeric ratings (0-10) of pain intensity, a Pain Map, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). A Pain Management Index (PMI) score was calculated for each patient. Age differences on the measure of pain qualities were found. The elderly group had significantly lower MPQ total and sensory scores and chose fewer words than the young group. However, there were no significant differences between the groups on numeric ratings of highest, usual, and lowest pain intensity. Similarly, there were no age differences on PMI, Pain Map, or the HADS Depression or Anxiety Subscales. Finally, the latent structure, internal consistency, and pattern of subscale correlations of the MPQ were very similar in the young and elderly groups. Possible explanations for the discrepancy in the pattern of age differences on measures of pain intensity and quality are explored. The implications of this pattern of age differences for basic pain mechanisms and pain management should be given serious empirical attention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".