Baseline Pain Intensity Is a Predictor of Chronic Pain in Individuals With Distal Radius Fracture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of cohort study. OBJECTIVE: This study examined whether baseline pain intensity is a predictor of chronic pain and wrist/hand functions at 1 year following distal radius fracture (DRF). The study also examined the cutoff level for baseline pain intensity that best predicted chronic pain. BACKGROUND: Many individuals experience wrist/hand pain and functional impairments for as long as 1 year after DRF. Early identification of individuals at risk of these adverse outcomes can facilitate the delivery of required interventions to mitigate the risk. METHODS: Data for the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) pain and function subscales at baseline and 1 year after DRF, age, sex, injury to the dominant side, presence of comorbidity, education level, mechanism of fracture, smoking status, fall history, and energy of fracture were extracted from an existing data set. Multivariate regression analysis examined the utility of baseline pain intensity and the above variables in predicting pain and functional status at 1 year in individuals with DRF. Receiver operating characteristic curves examined the sensitivity/specificity of baseline pain intensity in predicting chronic pain and functional impairment. RESULTS: Required data were available for 386 individuals. Baseline pain intensity was found to be a strong predictor of chronic pain, explaining 22% of the variance. A baseline score of 35 out of 50 on the pain subscale of the PRWE had the best sensitivity (85%) and specificity (79%) cutoff values for predicting chronic pain at 1 year after DRF. CONCLUSION: Rehabilitation practitioners may be able to use a score of greater than 35/50 on the PRWE pain subscale to screen individuals at risk of chronic pain following DRF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognosis, level 4.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".