Pain and participation in social activities in people with relapsing remitting and progressive multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Differences in pain between subtypes of multiple sclerosis are understudied. Objective To compare the prevalence of pain, and the association between pain and: (a) pain interference and (b) social participation in people with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis and progressive multiple sclerosis. Methods Participants completed the McGill Pain Questionnaire Short-Form-2, Pain Effects Scale and Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities-V2.0 questionnaires. We tested the association between multiple sclerosis subtype, pain severity, and pain interference/social participation using quantile regression. Results Of 231 participants (relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis: 161, progressive multiple sclerosis: 70), 82.3% were women. The prevalence of pain was 95.2%, of more than mild pain was 38.1%, and of pain-related limitations was 87%; there were no differences between multiple sclerosis subtypes. Compared to participants with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis, those with progressive multiple sclerosis reported higher pain interference (mean (standard deviation) Pain Effects Scale; progressive multiple sclerosis: 15[6.0] vs relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis: 13[5], p = 0.039) and lower social participation (Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities T-scores 45[9.0] vs 48.3[8.9], p = 0.011). However, on multivariable analysis accounting for age, physical disability, mood/anxiety and fatigue, multiple sclerosis subtype was not associated with differences in pain interference or social participation. Conclusions Pain was nearly ubiquitous. Over one-third of individuals with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis and progressive multiple sclerosis reported pronounced pain, although this did not differ by multiple sclerosis subtype.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".