Predictors of resilience in older adults with lower limb osteoarthritis and persistent severe pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Resilience refers to the process in which people function well despite adversity. Persistent severe pain may be considered an adversity in people with lower limb osteoarthritis (LLOA). The objectives of this study are: (1) to identify what proportion of older adults with LLOA and persistent severe pain show good functioning; and (2) to explore predictors of resilience. METHODS: Data from the European Project on OSteoArthritis (EPOSA) were used involving standardized data from six European population-based cohort studies. LLOA is defined as clinical knee and/or hip osteoarthritis. Persistent severe pain is defined as the highest tertile of the pain subscale of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index both at baseline and follow-up. Resilience is defined as good physical, mental or social functioning at follow-up despite having LLOA with persistent severe pain. RESULTS: In total, 95 (14.9%) out of 638 individuals with LLOA had persistent severe pain. Among these, 10 (11.0%), 54 (57.4%) and 49 (53.8%) had good physical, mental and social functioning, respectively. Only 4 individuals (4.5%) were resilient in all three domains of functioning. Younger age, male sex, higher education, higher mastery, smoking and alcohol use, higher physical activity levels, absence of chronic diseases, and more contacts with friends predicted resilience in one or more domains of functioning. CONCLUSIONS: Few people with LLOA and persistent severe pain showed good physical functioning and about half showed good mental or social functioning. Predictors of resilience differed between domains, and might provide new insights for treatment.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".