Functionality and health-status benefits associated with reduction of osteoarthritis pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between pain intensity improvement and improvements in functionality and health status in patients with chronic osteoarthritis pain of the hip or knee. METHODS: Data were obtained from a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of tramadol ER 100 mg, 200 mg, 300 mg, or 400 mg once daily. Patients reported pain intensity with a 100-mm visual analog scale (0 = no pain, 100 = extreme pain) and functionality and health status with the disease-specific Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire and the generic Short-Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36). Pain intensity improvement from baseline was categorized as < 0%, 0-14%, 15-29%, 30-49%, 50-69%, and >or= 70%, and mean changes in WOMAC and SF-36 scores were determined for patients in each category. RESULTS: A total of 1011 patients received placebo (n = 205) or tramadol ER 100 mg (n = 202), 200 mg (n = 201), 300 mg (n = 201), or 400 mg (n = 202). The degree of pain intensity improvement was correlated with the degree of improvement in WOMAC and SF-36 scores; as little as 15% reduction of pain intensity was associated with notable improvements in function and health status. Potential limitations included the lack of established thresholds to assess clinically meaningful changes in these outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Pain intensity improvement is associated with corresponding improvements in function and health status. While large improvements in pain intensity are associated with large improvements in health status and functionality, modest pain reductions are also associated with improvement of certain health status parameters.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".