Testing the Biopsychosocial Model of Pain and Aging in the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The biopsychosocial model of pain and aging was tested in 30,097 community-dwelling people, aged 45 to 85, using data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging. Baseline information on pain (presence, intensity, and impact), sociodemographic, cognitive, physical, and biopsychosocial measures was collected through an in-home interview, in-person assessment, and a telephone questionnaire. Significant correlates of pain presence were sex, education, ethnicity, income, marital status, Biophysical, Cognitive-motor, and Psychosocial factors. Significant correlates of pain intensity were education, ethnicity, income, Biophysical, Cognitive-motor, and Psychosocial factors. Significant correlates of pain impact were sex, ethnicity, income, language conversation, Biophysical, and Psychosocial factors. Other physical, treatment, comorbidity, and biospecimen measures differed within and between pain outcomes. Age was significant in bivariate analysis but not in multivariate analysis. These results support the biopsychosocial model of pain and aging for multiple pain outcomes, highlighting the variability of pain in older adults.
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".