Does Age Affect the Relationship Between Pain and Disability? A Descriptive Study in Individuals Suffering From Chronic Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have revealed a weak to moderate relationship between pain and disability in individuals suffering from low back pain (LBP). However, to our knowledge, no studies have evaluated if this relationship is different between young and older adults. PURPOSE: The objective of this descriptive, cross-sectional study was to determine whether the relationship between LBP intensity and physical disability is different between young and older adults. METHODS: Pain intensity (measured with a visual analog scale) and physical disability scores (measured with the Oswestry Disability Index) were collected from the medical files of 164 patients with LBP. Separate Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between these 2 variables for young (mean age 40 ± 6 years, n = 82) and older (62 ± 9 years, n = 82) individuals and a Fisher r-to-z transformation was used to test for group differences in the strength of the relationship. Linear regression analyses were also performed to determine whether the slope of the association was different between the 2 groups. RESULTS: A significant and positive association was found between pain intensity and disability for both young and older individuals. However, the correlation was stronger in the young group (r = 0.66; P < .01) than in the older group (r = 0.44; P < .01) (Fisher Z = 2.03; P < .05). The linear regression model also revealed that the slope of the relationship was steeper in the young group (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Although both young and older individuals showed a significant association between pain intensity and disability, the relationship between these 2 variables was more tenuous in older individuals than in young patients. Future research is essential to identify the factors underlying this age-related difference.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".