Association Between Sleep Quality and Pain Intensity in Mild Patients with COPD: A Community Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Poor sleep quality and pain were common and had been proved as an important influenced factor of quality of life for patients with COPD. The association of sleep quality with pain has been observed in other population but remains unclear in mild patients with COPD from a community setting. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted to include eligible mild patients with COPD in Pudong New District of Shanghai. A structured questionnaire was used to collect general and clinical information for the patients. The Chinese version of Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and the short form of McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) was used to assess sleep quality and intensity of pain. Logistic regression was performed to test the association between sleeping quality and pain intensity. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-four patients with COPD, with an average age of 64 years (SD 5.78 years), were enrolled, and of 52% were women. Seventy-one (26.9%) participants reported at least one exacerbation during the past year. About 28.2% of the patients were classified as having poor sleep quality. Sleep quality was significantly associated with PRI score (adjusted odds ratio (ORad)=2.16, 95% CI: 1.16-4.00) and PPI rank (ORad=1.90, 95% CI: 1.08-3.34). People with daytime disturbance were more likely to have pain (ORad =2.03, 95% CI: 1.18-3.50). CONCLUSION: Poor sleep quality was common in mild patients with COPD in community and was associated with higher pain intensity. Pain may involve an impairment of sleep quality.
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 | 0.052 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".