The contribution of pain and disability on the transition from acute to chronic pain-related TMD: A 3-month prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although most cases of pain-related temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are mild and self-limiting, about 10% of TMD patients develop severe disorders associated with chronic pain and disability. It has been suggested that pain intensity contributes to the transition from acute to chronic pain-related TMD. Therefore, the aims of this current prospective cohort study were to assess if pain intensity, pain always being present, pain or stiffness on awakening, jaw activities, and interference, were associated with the transition from acute to chronic pain-related TMD at 3 months of follow-up. One hundred and nine participants, recruited from four clinics in Montreal and Ottawa, received examinations and completed the required instruments at baseline and at the 3rd month of follow-up. In a multivariable analysis including sex, age, characteristic pain index (CPI) (OR = 1.03, 95%CI = 1.01–1.06, P = 0.005), moderate to severe average pain intensity (OR = 3.51, 95%CI = 1.24–9.93, P = 0.02), disability points score (OR = 1.29, 95%CI = 1.06–1.57, P = 0.01), interferences (ORs = 1.30–1.32, P = 0.003–0.005), screening score (OR = 1.37, 95%CI = 1.08–1.76, P = 0.01), and pain always present (OR = 2.55, 95%CI = 1.08–6.00, P = 0.03) assessed at first-visit were related to the transition outcome at the 3rd month of follow-up. Further, we found that if 4 patients with acute pain-related TMD on average were exposed to these risk factors at baseline, 1 would have the transition from acute to chronic pain at 3 months of follow-up. Results indicate that these factors are associated with the transition from acute to chronic pain-related TMD, and therefore should be considered as important factors when evaluating and developing treatment plans for patients with pain-related TMD.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".