Pain Susceptibility Phenotypes in Those Free of Knee Pain With or at Risk of Knee Osteoarthritis: The Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: It is not clear why some individuals develop pain with knee osteoarthritis (OA). We undertook this study to identify pain susceptibility phenotypes (PSPs) and their relationship to incident persistent knee pain (PKP) 2 years later. METHODS: We identified individuals free of PKP from the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study, a longitudinal cohort of older adults with or at risk of knee OA. Latent class analysis was used to determine PSPs that may contribute to development of PKP apart from structural pathology. These included widespread pain, poor sleep, and psychological factors as well as pressure pain threshold and temporal summation (TS) as determined by quantitative sensory testing (QST). We used logistic regression to evaluate the association of sociodemographic factors with PSPs and the relationship of PSPs to the development of PKP over 2 years. RESULTS: , 55% women). Four PSPs were identified, primarily characterized by varying proportions (low/absent, moderate, or high) of the presence of pressure pain sensitivity and of facilitated TS, reflecting different measures of sensitization. Subjects in the PSP with a high proportion of pressure pain sensitivity and a moderate proportion of facilitated TS were twice as likely to develop incident PKP over 2 years (odds ratio 1.98 [95% confidence interval 1.07-3.68]) compared with subjects in the PSP having a low proportion of sensitization by both measures. CONCLUSION: Four PSPs were identified, 3 of which were predominated by QST evidence of sensitization and 1 of which was associated with developing PKP 2 years later. Prevention or amelioration of sensitization may be a novel approach to preventing onset of PKP in OA.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".