Pain Lowers Subjective Survival Probabilities Among Middle-Aged and Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Pain is a leading cause of disability and a limiting factor in individuals' assessments of their own subjective health; however, its association with subjective longevity has yet to be explored. Subjective survival probabilities (SSPs), or one's own perceived chances of living to a given age, can influence individuals' behavior as they plan for their futures. This study assesses whether pain correlates to lower SSPs. METHODS: We use a repeated cross-section of the 2000-2018 waves of the Health and Retirement Study, a longitudinal and nationally representative survey of Americans aged 51 and older (N = 31,773). RESULTS: Fractional logit regressions indicate that, across all age groups, respondents with severe and/or interfering pain reported significantly lower SSPs than those with no pain (Marginal Effect [ME] = -0.03 to -0.06, p < .05). Controlling for all covariates, mild or moderate noninterfering pain was only associated with a significant reduction in SSPs among the youngest group reporting their chances of living to age 75 (ME = -0.02, p < .001). Descriptively and in the model results, respondents with mild or moderate noninterfering pain appeared to more closely resemble pain-free respondents than those with severe or interfering pain. DISCUSSION: These findings highlight the importance of pain on SSPs, and contribute to the growing evidence that pain interference is uniquely important in predicting meaningful health outcomes.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".