Course of pain and fluctuations in pain related to suspected early hip osteoarthritis: the CHECK study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prevalence during a 10-year follow-up of clinically relevant fluctuations in pain and the course of hip pain in participants with hip complaints suspected to be early stage hip osteoarthritis (OA). To distinguish between participants with relevant fluctuations in pain and those without based on baseline characteristics. METHODS: Data were collected at baseline and after 2, 5, 8, and 10 years on 495 participants from the Cohort Hip and Cohort Knee Study (CHECK) with hip pain at baseline. Baseline demographic, anamnestic, and physical-examination characteristics were assessed. The primary outcome was levels of pain in the past week (scored using 0-10 Numeric Rating Scale) at follow-up assessments. Relevant fluctuation was defined as average absolute residuals greater than 1 after fitting a straight line to the participant's pain scores over time. RESULTS: The majority of the participants (76%) had stable or decreasing pain. Relevant fluctuations were found in 37% of the participants. The following baseline variables were positively associated with the presence of relevant fluctuations: higher levels of pain in the past week, use of pain transformation as a coping style, higher number of comorbidities, use of pain medication, and higher levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. No associations were found for baseline radiographic hip OA or clinical hip OA. CONCLUSION: During a 10-year follow-up, the majority of participants had stable or decreasing pain levels. In those participants with relevant fluctuation (37%), a limited number of baseline variables were associated with increased odds of having relevant fluctuations in pain.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".