The geography of arthritis-attributable pain outcomes: a county-level spatial analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Research on the geographic distribution of pain and arthritis outcomes, especially at the county level, is limited. This is a high-priority topic, however, given the heterogeneity of subnational and substate regions and the importance of county-level governments in shaping population health. Our study provides the most fine-grained picture to date of the geography of pain in the United States. Combining 2011 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data with county-level data from the Census and other sources, we examined arthritis and arthritis-attributable joint pain, severe joint pain, and activity limitations in US counties. We used small area estimation to estimate county-level prevalences and spatial analyses to visualize and model these outcomes. Models considering spatial structures show superiority over nonspatial models. Counties with higher prevalences of arthritis and arthritis-related outcomes are mostly clustered in the Deep South and Appalachia, while severe consequences of arthritis are particularly common in counties in the Southwest, Pacific Northwest, Georgia, Florida, and Maine. Net of arthritis, county-level percentages of racial/ethnic minority groups are negatively associated with joint pain prevalence, but positively associated with severe joint pain prevalence. Severe joint pain is also more common in counties with more female individuals, separated or divorced residents, more high school noncompleters, fewer chiropractors, and higher opioid prescribing rates. Activity limitations are more common in counties with higher percentages of uninsured people. Our findings show that different spatial processes shape the distribution of different arthritis-related pain outcomes, which may inform local policies and programs to reduce the risk of arthritis and its consequences.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".