Association between chronic pain and dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Dementia and chronic pain (CP) are prevalent among older adults. However, no study has systematically reviewed the association between dementia and CP. Therefore, we performed this study to gather evidence about the potential relationship between the two. METHODS: Two authors independently searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science to identify all records published up to 1 September 2022 that explored the association between CP and dementia. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS). A fixed or random-effects model was used to pool the risk estimates. RESULTS: Among the initial 3296 articles retrieved, 19 were included in the review (1 cross-sectional, and 18 cohort). The pooled result showed the risk of dementia was 1.42 times higher in CP patients (HR = 1.42, 95% CI 1.23-1.64, P < 0.001). dementia and CP subtypes, gender, and age did not significantly affect the results. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that people who suffered from CP are at an increased risk of developing dementia, regardless of gender, age, and dementia and CP subtypes.
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.
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 | 0.016 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it