The Problem of Pain in the United States: A Population-Based Characterization of Biopsychosocial Correlates of High Impact Chronic Pain Using the National Health Interview Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over 20 million adults in the United States live with high impact chronic pain (HICP), or chronic pain that limits life or work activities for ≥3 months. It is critically important to differentiate people with HICP from those who sustain normal activities although experiencing chronic pain. Therefore, we aim to help clinicians and researchers identify those with HICP by: 1) developing models that identify factors associated with HICP using the 2016 national health interview survey (NHIS) and 2) evaluating the performances of those models overall and by sociodemographic subgroups (sex, age, and race/ethnicity). Our analysis included 32,980 respondents. We fitted logistic regression models with LASSO (a parametric model) and random forest (a nonparametric model) for predicting HICP using the whole sample. Both models performed well. The most important factors associated with HICP were those related to underlying ill-health (arthritis and rheumatism, hospitalizations, and emergency department visits) and poor psychological well-being. These factors can be used for identifying higher-risk sub-groups for screening for HICP. We will externally validate these findings in future work. We need future studies that longitudinally predict the initiation and maintenance of HICP, then use this information to prevent HICP and direct patients to optimal treatments. PERSPECTIVE: Our study developed models to identify factors associated with high-impact chronic pain (HICP) using the 2016 National Health Interview Survey. There was homogeneity in the factors associated with HICP by gender, age, and race/ethnicity. Understanding these risk factors is crucial to support the identification of populations and individuals at highest risk for developing HICP and improve access to interventions that target these high-risk subgroups.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".