The associations between sleep problems and pain outcomes in people with hand osteoarthritis – Data from the Nor-hand study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To examine the relation of sleep problems to pain outcomes in people with hand osteoarthritis, and the extent to which central sensitization mediates these relationships. Design: In total 299 participants from the Nor-Hand cohort study rated their sleep problems (no, slight, moderate or severe problems), hand pain intensity on a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS, range: 0-10) and Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN; range: 0-20), and overall bodily pain intensity (NRS). Central sensitization was evaluated by quantitative sensory testing. All pain questionnaires were repeated after 3.5 years. We explored the associations between sleep problems at baseline and pain outcomes at baseline and follow-up and fitted natural effect models to examine the extent to which measures of central sensitization mediated the effects of sleep problems on pain. All main analyses were adjusted for age, sex, education, comorbidities, and body mass index. Results: Slight, moderate, and severe sleep problems were reported by 33.8 %, 26.8 % and 14.3 %, respectively. In general, individuals with severe versus without sleep problems reported relatively more intense pain at baseline and follow up (i.e., a 1.68 (95 % confidence interval 0.89-2.46) higher NRS hand pain at baseline). Associations between sleep and central sensitization were weak, with no mediating effects found. For example, the indirect effect of remote pressure pain thresholds was 0.06 (-0.27, 0.39) NRS points for hand pain among individuals reporting severe sleep problems. Conclusion: Sleep problems are commonly reported and related to pain intensity in people with hand osteoarthritis, while the underlying mechanisms and temporal relationship remain unclear.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".