Association of Neuromyelitis Optica With Severe and Intractable Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To contrast differences in pain and treatment outcomes between neuromyelitis optica (NMO) and multiple sclerosis (MS). DESIGN: Retrospective, cross-sectional cohort study. SETTING: Academic MS center. PATIENTS: Complete ascertainment of an academic MS center cohort of NMO and an MS comparison sample cohort. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Current pain was quantified by a 10-point scale and the McGill Pain Questionnaire.Expanded Disability Status Scale score and number of involved spinal cord levels were collected in addition to testing for cognition, fatigue, depression, and quality of life. Number and types of pain medications were tabulated. RESULTS: Current pain was more common in subjects with NMO (n=29) vs MS (n=66) (86.2% vs 40.9%; P.001)and more severe on a 10-point scale (5.38 vs 1.85;P.001). Pain remained more common after controlling for disability and number of spinal cord segments(P=.03). Prescription pain medication was used more frequently in subjects with NMO compared with subjects with MS(75.9% vs 37.8%; P.001), often requiring more than 1 medication (65.5% vs 15.2%; P.001). No subject with NMO taking pain medication (22 of 29) rated their current pain as 0 of 10, whereas almost half of those taking pain medication with MS were currently free of pain (0% vs 48%; P=.006). CONCLUSIONS: Neuromyelitis optica is frequently associated with severe pain that appears insufficiently controlled by pharmacologic interventions. Future studies should evaluate the efficacy of a multidisciplinary and multimodal approach to pain management.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".