Patterns and natural history of hand pain in individuals with symptomatic hand osteoarthritis in a prospective cohort study: A post-hoc analysis of a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the variation in the distribution and the natural history of hand pain over 6 weeks in individuals with symptomatic hand osteoarthritis. Design: Patient-reported outcome data were collected at baseline and weekly for 6 weeks from community-based participants enrolled in a randomised controlled trial. Participants were grouped based on location of significant pain (Visual Analogue Scale, VAS≥40/100 mm) (both carpometacarpal (CMC) and interphalangeal (IP), CMC only, and IP only). Results: At baseline, of the 106 participants, 55(51.9 %) had pain in both CMC and IP joints, 28(26.4 %) in IP joints only, and 16(15.1 %) in CMC joint only. Those with CMC and IP pain had significantly higher VAS pain [68.1 (2.6) vs 59.3 (3.5) vs 51.2 (4.7)]; Australian Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index, (AUSCAN) pain [290.1 (15.7) vs 225.3 (21.2) vs 237.9 (28.4)], stiffness [57.1 (3.7) vs 44.6 (5.0) vs 32.2 (6.7)] and functional limitation [527.5 (30.9) vs 356.0 (41.7) vs 433.3 (55.7)]; and pain sensitization [PainDETECT score 11.1 (1.1) vs 8.1 (1.8) vs 5.8 (1.9)] compared to those with IP or CMC only pain, respectively. All groups showed improvement in outcomes over 6 weeks without significant inter-group differences. Conclusion: In a population with significant hand pain, pain in both CMC and IP joints was most common and identified a more severe phenotype than pain in IP or CMC only with higher pain, more functional limitation and pain sensitization. These data have the potential to inform clinical management of patients with hand pain and patient selection in clinical trials.
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 | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".