Identifying Weekly Trajectories of Pain Severity Using Daily Data From an mHealth Study: Cluster Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People with chronic pain experience variability in their trajectories of pain severity. Previous studies have explored pain trajectories by clustering sparse data; however, to understand daily pain variability, there is a need to identify clusters of weekly trajectories using daily pain data. Between-week variability can be explored by quantifying the week-to-week movement between these clusters. We propose that future work can use clusters of pain severity in a forecasting model for short-term (eg, daily fluctuations) and longer-term (eg, weekly patterns) variability. Specifically, future work can use clusters of weekly trajectories to predict between-cluster movement and within-cluster variability in pain severity. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to understand clusters of common weekly patterns as a first stage in developing a pain-forecasting model. METHODS: Data from a population-based mobile health study were used to compile weekly pain trajectories (n=21,919) that were then clustered using a k-medoids algorithm. Sensitivity analyses tested the impact of assumptions related to the ordinal and longitudinal structure of the data. The characteristics of people within clusters were examined, and a transition analysis was conducted to understand the movement of people between consecutive weekly clusters. RESULTS: Four clusters were identified representing trajectories of no or low pain (1714/21,919, 7.82%), mild pain (8246/21,919, 37.62%), moderate pain (8376/21,919, 38.21%), and severe pain (3583/21,919, 16.35%). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the 4-cluster solution, and the resulting clusters were similar to those in the main analysis, with at least 85% of the trajectories belonging to the same cluster as in the main analysis. Male participants spent longer (participant mean 7.9, 95% bootstrap CI 6%-9.9%) in the no or low pain cluster than female participants (participant mean 6.5, 95% bootstrap CI 5.7%-7.3%). Younger people (aged 17-24 y) spent longer (participant mean 28.3, 95% bootstrap CI 19.3%-38.5%) in the severe pain cluster than older people (aged 65-86 y; participant mean 9.8, 95% bootstrap CI 7.7%-12.3%). People with fibromyalgia (participant mean 31.5, 95% bootstrap CI 28.5%-34.4%) and neuropathic pain (participant mean 31.1, 95% bootstrap CI 27.3%-34.9%) spent longer in the severe pain cluster than those with other conditions, and people with rheumatoid arthritis spent longer (participant mean 7.8, 95% bootstrap CI 6.1%-9.6%) in the no or low pain cluster than those with other conditions. There were 12,267 pairs of consecutive weeks that contributed to the transition analysis. The empirical percentage remaining in the same cluster across consecutive weeks was 65.96% (8091/12,267). When movement between clusters occurred, the highest percentage of movement was to an adjacent cluster. CONCLUSIONS: The clusters of pain severity identified in this study provide a parsimonious description of the weekly experiences of people with chronic pain. These clusters could be used for future study of between-cluster movement and within-cluster variability to develop accurate and stakeholder-informed pain-forecasting tools.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".