Characteristics and comorbidities associated with pain in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : A recent survey demonstrated that the prevalence of pain in people with COPD was more than twice that in age-matched people without COPD, and pain was ∼2.5 times more severe. Purpose/Hypothesis: to determine the characteristics and comorbidities associated with pain in people with COPD. Methods: Patients were recruited from respiratory clinics and pulmonary rehabilitation programs. Respondents participated in a mail survey that included: the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), a form to list comorbidities (modified from the Charlson Index) and medications. Results: Sixty-five of 92 COPD patients responded to the survey (70% response rate). They had an FEV1 of 44±17 % pred, a BMI of 27.6 kg/m2 and were 74±8 years. Forty-four respondents (67%) self-reported pain. On the BPI, 64% of these COPD patients had moderate to very severe pain and 73% had moderate to very high pain interference with daily activities. Average pain severity scores on the MPQ and BPI were correlated (r= 0.74). Of 44 COPD patients who experienced pain, 39 (89%) reported ≥2 comorbidities and 20 (45 %) reported ≥4 comorbidities; the most common were musculoskeletal (21%) and circulatory disorders (21%). Twenty-eight (64%) of COPD patients used pain alleviating treatments, the most common were non-prescription pain medications (acetaminophen and ibuprophen [n=18; 64%) followed by prescription NSAIDS and narcotics. Conclusions: Moderate to severe pain is common in people with COPD. This pain likely compromises full participation in rehabilitation and the ability to increase physical activity. Musculoskeletal causes appear to be a major contributing factor.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".