Loneliness, social isolation, and pain following the COVID-19 outbreak: data from a nationwide internet survey in Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aim of cross-sectional study was to investigate the association between pain and loneliness and increased social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 25,482 participants, aged 15–79 years, were assessed using an internet survey; the University of California, Los Angeles Loneliness Scale (Version 3), Short Form 3-item (UCLA-LS3-SF3) was used to assess loneliness, and a modified item of the UCLA-LS3-SF3 was used to measure the perception of increased social isolation during the pandemic. The outcome measures included the prevalence/incidence of pain (i.e., headache, neck or shoulder pain, upper limb pain, low back pain, and leg pain), pain intensity, and chronic pain history/prevalence. Pain intensity was measured by the pain/discomfort item of the 5-level version of the EuroQol 5 Dimension scale. Odds ratios of pain prevalence/incidence and chronic pain history/prevalence according to the UCLA-LS3-SF3 scoring groups (tertiles) and the frequency of the perceived increase in social isolation (categories 1–5) were calculated using multinomial logistic regression analysis. The mean pain intensity values among different loneliness and social isolation levels were tested using an analysis of covariance. Increased loneliness and the severity of the perceived social isolation were positively associated with pain prevalence/incidence, intensity, and the history/prevalence of chronic 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 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 | 0.039 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".