MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383340951 · doi:10.1038/s41591-023-02430-4

A prognostic risk score for development and spread of chronic pain

2023· article· en· W4383340951 on OpenAlexaff
Christophe Tanguay-Sabourin, Matt Fillingim, Gianluca V. Guglietti, Azin Zare, Marc Parisien, Jax Norman, Hilary Sweatman, Ronrick Da‐ano, Eveliina Heikkala, John C.S. Breitner, Julien Menes, Judes Poirier, Jennifer Tremblay‐Mercier, Jordi Pérez, Jaro Karppinen, Sylvia Villeneuve, Scott J. Thompson, Marc O. Martel, Mathieu Roy, Luda Diatchenko, Étienne Vachon‐Presseau

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalDouglas Mental Health University InstituteMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalMcGill University Health Centre
FundersNational Institute on Drug Abuse
KeywordsChronic painMedicineInternal medicineIntensive care medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic pain is a complex condition influenced by a combination of biological, psychological and social factors. Using data from the UK Biobank (n = 493,211), we showed that pain spreads from proximal to distal sites and developed a biopsychosocial model that predicted the number of coexisting pain sites. This data-driven model was used to identify a risk score that classified various chronic pain conditions (area under the curve (AUC) 0.70-0.88) and pain-related medical conditions (AUC 0.67-0.86). In longitudinal analyses, the risk score predicted the development of widespread chronic pain, the spreading of chronic pain across body sites and high-impact pain about 9 years later (AUC 0.68-0.78). Key risk factors included sleeplessness, feeling 'fed-up', tiredness, stressful life events and a body mass index >30. A simplified version of this score, named the risk of pain spreading, obtained similar predictive performance based on six simple questions with binarized answers. The risk of pain spreading was then validated in the Northern Finland Birth Cohort (n = 5,525) and the PREVENT-AD cohort (n = 178), obtaining comparable predictive performance. Our findings show that chronic pain conditions can be predicted from a common set of biopsychosocial factors, which can aid in tailoring research protocols, optimizing patient randomization in clinical trials and improving pain management.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations129
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature MedicineSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207