Contributing factors to chronic myofascial pain: a case–control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This case-control study was designed to investigate the contributing factors for chronic masticatory myofascial pain (MFP). Eighty-three patients with MFP, selected from the dental clinics of the Jewish General and Montreal General Hospitals, Montreal, Canada, and 100 concurrent controls selected only at the first clinic, participated in this study. The association with MFP was evaluated for bruxism, head-neck trauma, psychological factors (symptom check list 90 revised questionnaire, SCL-90R) and sociodemographic characteristics by using unconditional logistic regression. Clenching-grinding was associated with chronic MFP in multiple models including anxiety (OR=8.48; 95% CI: 2.85; 25.25) and depression (OR=8.13; 95% CI: 2.76; 23.97). This association also remained for MFP, excluding all other temporomandibular disorders (TMD). Clenching-only (OR=2.54; 95% CI: 1.10; 5.87) and trauma (OR=2.10; 95% CI: 1.0; 4.50) were found to be associated with the chronic MFP, when the level of anxiety was adjusted in the model. No significant change was noted when the effects of clenching-only (2.76; 95% CI: 1.20; 6.35) and trauma (OR=2.08; 95% CI: 1.03; 4.40) were adjusted for depression. Clenching-only and clenching-grinding remained related to MFP regardless of patients being informed about these habits. A higher score of anxiety (OR=5.12; 95% CI: 1.36; 19.41) and depression (OR=3.51; 95% CI: 1.07; 11.54) were associated with MFP, as well as other psychological symptoms. In addition, female gender had almost three times the risk of chronic MFP than males when the model was also adjusted for psychological symptoms. Grinding-only, age, household income and education were not related with chronic MFP. Tooth clenching, trauma and female gender may contribute to MFP even when other psychological symptoms are similar between subjects.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".