MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4251984871 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-16949/v1

Defining pain and interference recovery trajectories after acute non-catastrophic musculoskeletal trauma through Growth Mixture Modeling

2020· preprint· en· W4251984871 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Joshua Lee, David M. Walton, Paul R. Tremblay, Curtis May, Wanda Millard, James M. Elliott, Joy C. MacDermid

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaWestern University
FundersNational Center for Medical Rehabilitation ResearchOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsInterference (communication)MedicinePsychologyComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Recovery trajectories support early identification of delayed recovery and can inform personalized management or phenotyping of risk profiles in patients. The objective of this study was to investigate the trajectories in pain severity and functional interference following non-catastrophic musculoskeletal (MSK) trauma in an international, mixed injury sample. Methods A prospective longitudinal cohort of n= 241 was formed from patients identified within 4 weeks of trauma, from attendance at emergency or urgent care centres located in London, ON, Canada, or Chicago, IL, USA. Pain interference was measured via the Brief Pain Inventory (London cohort) or the Neck Disability Index (Chicago cohort). Pain severity was captured in both cohorts using the numeric pain rating scale. Growth mixture modeling and RM ANOVA approaches identified distinct trajectories of recovery within pain interference and pain severity data. Results For pain interference, the 3 trajectories were labeled accordingly: Class 1 = Rapid recovery (lowest intercept, full or near full recovery by 3 months, 32.0% of the sample); Class 2 = Delayed recovery (higher intercept, recovery by 12 months, 26.7% of the sample); Class 3 = Minimal or no recovery (higher intercept, persistently high interference scores at 12 months, 41.3% of the sample). For pain severity, the 2 trajectories were labeled: Class 1 = Rapid recovery (lower intercept, recovery by 3 months, 81.3% of the sample); and Class 2 = Minimal or no recovery (higher intercept, flat curve, 18.7% of the sample). The “Minimal or No Recovery” trajectory could be predicted by female sex and axial (vs. peripheral) region of trauma with 74.3% accuracy across the 3 classes for the % Interference outcome. For the Pain Severity outcome, only region (axial trauma, 81.3% accuracy) predicted the “Minimal or No Recovery” trajectory. Conclusions These results suggest that 3 meaningful recovery trajectories can be identified in an international, mixed-injury sample when pain interference is the outcome, and 2 recovery trajectories emerge when pain severity is the outcome. Females in the sample or people who suffered axial injuries (head, neck, or low back) were more likely to be classed in poor outcome trajectories.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→