Pain problems for patients with mild and moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease – a community-based study in Shanghai
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a great public health burden worldwide. Few studies have focused on pain problems in patients with mild and moderate COPD in Chinese community settings. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 283 patients with mild and moderate COPD was conducted in six communities that were randomly sampled in Pudong New Area of Shanghai, China, in 2016. A face-to-face interview was conducted to collect data on personal characteristics and health conditions. The short form McGill Pain Questionnaire and the COPD assessment test (CAT) were applied to evaluate pain problems and health status, respectively. RESULTS: Among 283 subjects, more than one third (37%) had pain problems indicated by the present pain intensity (PPI) scale. COPD patients aged <65 years with exacerbation in the past 12 months or a CAT score of ≥10 had a significantly higher score in affective dimension. Female sex, COPD severity, and length of disease were significantly related to higher scores of the sensory dimension. Those with moderate COPD or a CAT score of ≥10 had significantly higher scores of visual analog scale than those with mild COPD or a CAT score <10. Patients with moderate COPD had a higher rank of PPI than those with mild COPD. CONCLUSION: Pain was common in patients with mild and moderate COPD in the community settings of Shanghai, China. Severity of COPD and CAT score were significantly related to the prevalence of pain. Intervention measures should be developed to improve pain problems for COPD patients.
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 | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".