Prevalence of rheumatic regional pain syndromes in Latin-American indigenous groups: a census study based on COPCORD methodology and syndrome-specific diagnostic criteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assessed the overall and specific prevalence of the main rheumatic regional pain syndromes (RRPS) in four Latin-American indigenous groups. A Community Oriented Program for Control of Rheumatic Diseases (COPCORD) methodology-based census study was performed in 4240 adults (participation rate: 78.88 %) in four indigenous groups: Chontal (Oaxaca, Mexico, n = 124), Mixteco (Oaxaca, Mexico; n = 937), Maya-Yucateco (Yucatán, Mexico; n = 1523), and Qom (Rosario, Argentina; n = 1656). Subjects with musculoskeletal pain were identified using a cross-cultural, validated COPCORD questionnaire administered by bilingual personnel, and reviewed by general practitioners or rheumatologists using standardized case definitions for the 12 most frequent RRPS. The overall prevalence of RRPS was confirmed in 239 cases (5.64 %, 95 % CI: 4.98-6.37). The prevalence in each group was Chontal n = 19 (15.32 %, 95 % CI: 10.03-22.69); Maya-Yucateco n = 165 (10.83 %, 95 % CI: 9.37-12.49); Qom n = 48 (2.90 %, 95 % CI: 2.19-3.82); and Mixteco n = 7 (0.75 %, 95 % CI: 0.36-1.53). In the whole sample, the syndrome-specific prevalence was rotator cuff tendinopathy: 1.98 % (95 % CI: 1.60-2.45); lateral epicondylalgia: 0.83 % (95 % CI: 0.59-1.15); medial epicondylalgia: 0.73 % (95 % CI: 0.52-1.04); biceps tendinopathy: 0.71 % (95 % CI: 0.50-1.01); anserine syndrome: 0.64 % (95 % CI: 0.44-0.92); inferior heel pain: 0.61 % (95 % CI: 0.42-0.90); trochanteric syndrome: 0.49 % (95 % CI: 0.25-0.64); de Quervain's tendinopathy: 0.45 % (95 % CI: 0.29-0.70); trigger finger: 0.42 % (95 % CI: 0.27-0.67); carpal tunnel syndrome: 0.28 % (95 % CI: 0.16-0.49); Achilles tendinopathy (insertional): 0.12 % (95 % CI: 0.05-0.28); and Achilles tendinopathy (non-insertional): 0.07 % (95 % CI: 0.02-0.21). Leaving aside the comparison between Maya-Yucateco and Chontal groups (p = 0.18), we found significant differences (p < 0.001) in overall RRPS prevalence between the remaining pairs of indigenous groups. Syndrome-specific prevalences were also different between groups. Our findings support the hypothesis that overall RRPS prevalence and syndrome-specific prevalences are modulated by population-specific factors.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".