Associations between pain sensitization and measures of physical function in people with hand osteoarthritis: Results from the Nor-Hand study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether pain sensitization is associated with hand and lower extremity function in people with hand osteoarthritis (OA) in the Nor-Hand study. DESIGN: Pain sensitization was assessed by pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) and temporal summation (TS). Hand function was assessed by Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN) (range: 0-36), grip strength and Moberg pick-up test, and lower extremity function was assessed by Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (range: 0-68), 30-s chair stand test, and 40-m walk test. We examined whether sex-standardized PPT and TS values were cross-sectionally associated with measures of physical function using linear regression analyses. Beta coefficients were presented per sex-specific standard deviation of PPT and TS. The mediating effect of pain was examined by causal-inference based mediation analysis. RESULTS: In 206 participants, higher PPTs at/near the hand, indicative of less peripheral and/or central pain sensitization, were associated with greater grip strength and better self-reported hand function (beta for PPT at finger joint on AUSCAN function: -1.41, 95% CI -2.40, -0.42). Higher PPTs at/near the hand, near the knee and at trapezius were associated with lower extremity function, although not statistically significant for all outcomes. Self-reported pain severity mediated the effect of PPT on self-reported function. TS was not associated with hand or lower extremity function. CONCLUSION: Peripheral sensitization, and possibly central sensitization, was associated with impaired function. Effects of PPTs on self-reported function were mediated by self-reported pain, whereas there might be a direct effect of sensitization or effects through other mediators on performance-based function.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".