Trends in Pain Prevalence among Adults Aged 50 and Older across Europe, 2004 to 2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: We examine recent trends in pain prevalence among adults aged 50+ across Europe. Methods: Data for 15 countries from the Survey of Health, Ageing, and Retirement in Europe are examined for two periods: 2004–2011 and 2013–2015. Trends are shown descriptively, using a multilevel modeling strategy controlling for covariates, and modeled on a country-specific basis. Results: Population-level pain prevalence ranges from about 30% to about 60% depending on the country and year. Pain is more prevalent in women and generally increases with age. There is an increase in prevalence over time, net of age, and other predictors. Prevalence increased with an annual average of 2.2% between 2004 and 2011 and 5.8% between 2013 and 2015, in fully adjusted models. Discussion: Trends in pain prevalence have implications for disability, healthcare utilization, productivity, and population health. These findings are not optimistic but align with other population-wide studies, suggesting a global trend of rising pain prevalence.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".