The Reciprocal Effects of Pain Intensity and Activity Limitations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the reciprocal effects of pain intensity and limitations in physical functioning over time. METHODS: This study presents findings from a reanalysis of a 7-center trial conducted in Ontario, Canada, included 209 adults with chronic knee pain secondary to osteoarthritis. Patients were randomized to receive 28 days of therapy with an active solution (1.5% w/w diclofenac sodium in dimethyl sulfoxide) or 1 of 2 control solutions containing no diclofenac. The key outcome measures used in the current analyses were administered throughout the study period and assessed pain intensity, perceived activity limitations, and a composite score measuring both domains. A structural cross-lagged regression approach was used to determine the reciprocal effects of pain and activity limitations over time. RESULTS: In both study groups, participants (N=209) experienced significant reductions in mean pain intensity and activity limitations from baseline to weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4 (P<0.001 for both variables). Similarly, there were significant reductions in the activity limitations outcome at weeks 1 and 4 for the active versus control group (P<0.05 for both). Higher levels of perceived activity limitations predicted more future pain at all time points. Cross-lagged associations in which pain predicted subsequent perceived activity limitations were not significant at any time point. All 3 outcome measures evidenced similar responsiveness to the treatment. CONCLUSION: These analyses showed that a decrease in activity limitations results in a decrease in pain intensity. However, changes in pain intensity had no effect on subsequent activity limitations in the study sample. None of the 3 outcome variables emerged as being more responsive to treatment than the others.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".