Factors associated with pain pressure threshold in both local and remote sites in knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a prevalent condition, and its most frequent symptom is pain that often leads to disability. Pain sensitization is a core feature of KOA, and it can be measured through quantitative sensory testing protocols such as pain pressure threshold (PPT). However, there is a lack of understanding about the factors that may influence changes in PPTs in the KOA population. OBJECTIVE: To explore the clinical and functional factors associated with PPTs in a sample of people with chronic KOA pain and to compare models of local (knees) and remote (thenar regions) sites. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of a prospective cohort. SETTING: Primary care in public institution. PARTICIPANTS: 113 adults with KOA. INTERVENTION: N/A. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Multivariable regression analyses evaluating demographic, clinical, and functional variables that could be associated with local and remote PPTs (main outcomes) were performed. RESULTS: : 0.45) models had the same significant negative association with being a female, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain levels (thenar: β: -0.15, p = .002; knee: β: -0.2, p < .001), and the 10-Meter Walking Test (thenar: β: -0.05, p = .038; knee: β: -0.08, p = .004). A small significant positive association with depressive symptoms was identified in both models, which acted as a confounder for WOMAC pain and was likely affected by unmeasured confounders. CONCLUSIONS: PPTs in KOA pain are associated with functional outcomes such as the 10-Meter Walking Test and activity-related pain intensity; thus more disability is associated with smaller pain thresholds. Similarity between models may suggest central sensitization.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".