MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4212996634 · doi:10.2196/23657

Association Between Step Count Measured With a Smartphone App (Pain-Note) and Pain Level in Patients With Chronic Pain: Observational Study

2022· article· en· W4212996634 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Takahisa Ogawa, Luis Castelo-Branco, Kotaro Hatta, Chie Usui

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPedometerMedicinePhysical therapyFibromyalgiaChronic painObservational studyPopulationCross-sectional studyInternal medicinePhysical activity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is the leading cause of disability, affecting between 20% and 50% of the global population. The key recommended treatment is physical activity, which can be measured in daily life using a pedometer. However, poor adherence to pedometer use can result in incorrect measurements. Furthermore, only a few studies have investigated a possible curvilinear association between physical activity and chronic pain. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we developed the Pain-Note smartphone app to collect real-world data on step count, using the smartphone's built-in pedometer. The aims of our research are (1) to evaluate the association between daily step count and pain level among patients with chronic pain and (2) determine if the association between daily step count and pain level was curvilinear. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study based on step count data collected with the app and on the results of questionnaires, which measured the duration and intensity of pain, the widespread pain index, the symptom severity score, and the insomnia severity scale, including 7 questions for symptoms of depression. We analyzed the association between step count and pain level as a nonlinear relationship using a restricted cubic spline model. A prespecified subgroup analysis was also conducted based on fibromyalgia criteria. RESULTS: Between June 1, 2018, and June 11, 2020, a total of 6138 records were identified, of which 1273 were analyzed. The mean age of the participants was 38.7 years, 81.9% (1043/1273) were female, and chronic pain was present for more than 5 years in 43.2% (550/1273) of participants. Participants in the third and fourth quartiles for step count (more than 3045 and 5668 steps a day, respectively) showed a significant positive association between higher step count and lower numerical pain rating scale (mean difference -0.43, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.08, P=.02; -0.45; 95% CI -0.8 to -0.1, P=.01, respectively) than those in the first quartile (less than or equal to 1199 steps a day). The restricted cubic spline model for the association between step count and pain scale displayed a steep decline followed by a moderate decrease as the step count increased; the inflection point was 5000 steps. However, this association was not observed among participants who met the fibromyalgia criteria (491/1273), who showed a steep positive increase below 2000 steps. Data were collected between June 1, 2018, and June 11, 2020, and were analyzed on November 18, 2021. CONCLUSIONS: Step count measured with the Pain-Note app showed a nonlinear association with pain level. Although participants with and without fibromyalgia showed a negative correlation between step count and pain level, participants who meet the criteria for fibromyalgia may present a different relationship between walking and pain perception compared to those in the general chronic pain population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→