Is the experience of pain in patients with temporomandibular disorder associated with the presence of comorbidity?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to explore the association between the presence of comorbidities and the pain experience in individual patients with temporomandibular disorder (TMD). This clinical trial comprised 112 patients with TMD pain. For all participants the presence of the following comorbid factors was assessed: pain in the neck; somatization; impaired sleep; and depression. Pain experience was evaluated using the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ). For each subject the TMD-pain experience was assessed for three dimensions - sensory, affective, and evaluative - as specified in the MPQ. The association between comorbid factors and these three dimensions of TMD-pain experience was then evaluated using linear regression models. Univariable regression analyses showed that all comorbid factors, except for one factor, were positively associated with the level of pain, as rated by the sensory description of pain, the affective component of pain, and the evaluative experience of pain. The multivariable regression analyses showed that for all MPQ dimensions, depression showed the strongest associations with pain experience. It was found that in the presence of comorbid disorders, patients with TMD experience elevated levels of TMD pain. This information should be taken into consideration in the diagnostic process, as well as in the choice of treatment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".