“Pain elsewhere” and the impact of knee pain in older people
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate how often knee pain is accompanied by pain elsewhere and to determine whether the presence of "pain elsewhere" than the knee influences either knee-related disability or the impact of knee pain on health and psychological status. METHODS: A survey was mailed to 8,995 individuals (age > or =50 years) registered with 3 general practices in North Staffordshire in the UK. Patients recorded pain on a manikin and completed the Short-Form 36 health survey, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Responders were categorized as having no pain, knee pain with or without pain elsewhere, or other pain (no knee pain, but pain elsewhere). Those with knee pain or other pain were subdivided by the extent of pain elsewhere. RESULTS: The adjusted survey response rate was 70%. Fifty-seven percent of responders with knee pain had pain in at least 2 other joint areas. Pain elsewhere was associated with lower physical function and with anxiety and depression both in the knee-pain group and in the other-pain group (associations were stronger in the knee-pain group). Knee pain and disability were less severe in those with knee pain alone than in those with knee pain and pain elsewhere, even after adjusting for age, sex, obesity, laterality of pain, and depression. CONCLUSION: Most people with knee pain have multiple joint site pain. The importance of this to clinicians and researchers is that the severity of knee pain and related disability is worse in the presence of pain elsewhere. This finding has implications for the management and treatment of older people with knee pain.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".