Depression and anxiety associated with three pain conditions: results from a nationally representative sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Investigations of the relationship between pain conditions and psychopathology have largely focused on depression and have been limited by the use of non-representative samples (e.g. clinical samples). The present study utilized data from the Midlife Development in the United States Survey (MIDUS) to investigate associations between three pain conditions and three common psychiatric disorders in a large sample (N = 3,032) representative of adults aged 25-74 in the United States population. MIDUS participants provided reports regarding medical conditions experienced over the past year including arthritis, migraine, and back pain. Participants also completed several diagnostic-specific measures from the Composite International Diagnostic Interview-Short Form [Int. J. Methods Psychiatr. Res. 7 (1998) 171], which was based on the revised third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [American Psychiatric Association 1987]. The diagnoses included were depression, panic attacks, and generalized anxiety disorder. Logistic regression analyses revealed significant positive associations between each pain condition and the psychiatric disorders (Odds Ratios ranged from 1.48 to 3.86). The majority of these associations remained statistically significant after adjusting for demographic variables, the other pain conditions, and other medical conditions. Given the emphasis on depression in the pain literature, it was noteworthy that the associations between the pain conditions and the anxiety disorders were generally larger than those between the pain conditions and depression. These findings add to a growing body of evidence indicating that anxiety disorders warrant further attention in relation to pain. The clinical and research implications of these findings are discussed.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".