As if one pain problem was not enough: prevalence and patterns of coexisting chronic pain conditions and their impact on treatment outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The presence of multiple coexisting chronic pain (CP) conditions (eg, low-back pain and migraines) within patients has received little attention in literature. The goals of this observational longitudinal study were to determine the prevalence of coexisting CP conditions, identify the most frequent ones and patterns of coexistence, investigate the relationships among patients' biopsychosocial characteristics and number of CP conditions, and determine the impact of coexisting CP conditions on treatment response. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 3,966 patients attending multidisciplinary pain-treatment centers who were enrolled in the Quebec Pain Registry were included. Patients completed self-report and nurse-administered questionnaires before their first visit and 6 months later. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics, factor and cluster analyses, negative binomials with log-link generalized linear models, and linear mixed-effect models. RESULTS: A third of patients reported coexisting CP conditions. No specific patterns of comorbidities emerged. The presence of coexisting CP conditions was associated with longer pain duration, older age, being female, and poorer quality of life. The presence of more than one CP condition did not have a clinically significant impact on treatment responses. DISCUSSION: The novelty of the study results relate to the heterogeneity that was found in the patterns of coexistence of CP conditions and the fact that having multiple CP conditions did not clinically impact treatment response. These results highlight the need for future research that examines causes of coexistence among CP conditions across the spectrum of CP, as opposed to focusing on specific conditions, and to examine whether multiple CP conditions impact on additional domains, such as treatment satisfaction. These results highlight the importance of studying the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the development of coexisting CP conditions, in order eventually to prevent/minimize their occurrence and/or develop optimal treatment and management approaches.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".