Bibliographic record
Abstract
SETTING: With the ageing of the world's population, any health problem which adversely affects quality of life in older persons becomes increasingly salient. Persistent pain is one of the most prevalent health conditions faced by adults of advanced age, and is recognized as a major concern for this segment of the population. RESULTS: Numerous epidemiologic surveys suggest that pain is most common during the late middle-aged phase of life (55-65 years) and continues at approximately the same prevalence into older age (65+). This is true regardless of the anatomical site or the pathogenic cause of pain. The one exception appears to be pain associated with degenerative joint disease (e.g., osteoarthritis) which shows an exponential increase until at least 90 years of age. Common age associated conditions like dementia may result in a reduced frequency and intensity of pain. Daily pain is a major risk factor for developing disability and the oldest age cohorts are most vulnerable. Discretionary and higher order physical activities appear most affected, while basic activities of daily living may be modified but are rarely ceased altogether. Similar relationships have been documented for risk of depression and mood disturbance in older persons with persistent pain. Despite such well characterized adverse impacts, pain often remains poorly treated in older persons. This occurs across all health care settings examined (i.e., emergency, acute, outpatient, long-term care). CONCLUSION: Improved knowledge for both health professionals and patients, addressing the current research gaps and expansion of age-appropriate pain management services will be required to better meet the needs of our rapidly ageing population.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".