MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7113618728

Severe Neck and Low Back Pain Predicts Severe Pain 5 Years Later in Older Men: A Cohort Study

2025· article· en· W7113618728 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsOsteoporosis Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrthopedic surgeryLow back painNeck painOsteoporosisUniversity hospitalCohort studyObservational studyProspective cohort study
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Henrik Damm,1 Björn E Rosengren,1 Lars Jehpsson,1 Claes Ohlsson,2,3 Eva L Ribom,4 Dan Mellström,5 Magnus K Karlsson1 1Orthopedics, Faculty of Medicine, Departments of Orthopaedics and Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden; 2Sahlgrenska Osteoporosis Centre, Center for Bone Research, Departments of Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Gothenburg University, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden; 3Department of Drug Treatment, Region Västra Götaland, Gothenburg University, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden; 4Section of Orthopaedics, Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; 5Departments of Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Gothenburg University, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, SwedenCorrespondence: Henrik Damm, Department of Orthopaedics and Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, SE-205 02, Sweden, Tel +46 40331000, Email henrik.damm@med.lu.sePurpose: To describe the prevalence of neck pain (NP) and low back pain (LBP) of varying severity in older community-dwelling men, identify associated factors, and evaluate whether prevalent NP/LBP are risk factors for experiencing pain 5 years later.Patients and Methods: MrOS Sweden is a prospective observational study that included 3014 community-dwelling men aged 69– 81 years, of whom 1962 attended a 5-year follow-up. NP/LBP were assessed based on 1-year prevalence (yes/no), pain severity (none, mild, moderate, severe), and the presence of radicular pain with or without motor deficits (yes/no), at both baseline and follow-up.Results: At baseline, the 1-year prevalence for having either NP, LBP, or both was 55%. The 1-year prevalence for NP was 29% and for LBP 45%. Among men with NP, 18% reported severe pain, while 17% of men with LBP reported severe pain. Men with NP at baseline had a relative risk (RR) of 4.0 (95% CI: 3.4– 4.6) for reporting NP 5 years later, compared to men without NP at baseline. Men with severe NP had an RR of 10.7 (95% CI: 7.5– 15.1) for reporting severe NP 5 years later, compared to men without severe NP at baseline. The corresponding RRs for LBP were 2.8 (95% CI: 2.5– 3.1) and 6.5 (95% CI: 4.9– 8.6). Poor self-rated health and dizziness were associated with NP/LBP at both time points, while smoking was associated with lower risk of NP.Conclusion: More than half of community-dwelling men aged 69– 81 experience pain in the spinal region during a year (nearly one-third NP and just below half LBP). The majority experience only mild to moderate pain. Baseline pain, especially severe pain, strongly predicts pain 5 years later, and associated factors may help identify high-risk groups suitable for targeted interventions.Keywords: ageing, epidemiology, musculoskeletal pain, population-based, radiculopathy, motoric symptoms

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.405 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→