Investigating the psychosocial factors, pain characteristics, and biological markers for opioid use in chronic non-cancer pain patients: a UK biobank population study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Chronic pain has been identified as one of the ten most common reasons for primary care visits globally, being represented as a disease on its own. So far, opioid analgesics have been widely prescribed to patients suffering from chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) due to their potential pain relief properties, particularly in the United States and Canada. However, the use of these medications in the context of CNCP has remained controversial, as there are concerns regarding reported public health challenges following long-term opioid therapy, such as opioid misuse and addiction. One major unanswered question is what makes a chronic pain patient more likely to be prescribed opioids among individuals recruited from the general population. Better understanding the characteristics of chronic non-cancer pain patients, determining prescribed opioid use, and opioid-related disorders will improve inform prescribing decisions on opioid analgesics. Objective To estimate the extent to which biological, psychological, and social factors predict opioid use in a large cohort of CNCP patients.Methods This population-based study used the prospective cohort of the UK Biobank. A machine learning approach was used to derive pain and pain-agnostic models predictive of opioid use. Models were developed using a sample of 178,763 CNCP patients from the baseline data (2006-2011) (i.e., train set) and validated using a left-out sample of 17,045 CNCP patients who have data available in a follow-up visit (6 to years later) (i.e., test set). Classification accuracy and correlation measures were used to evaluate the performance of the models. Regular prescription opioid use identified and confirmed at data collection visit was used as the outcome. Measures of C-reactive protein (CRP) collected from blood samples were assessed for their association with the predictive models. Diagnosis on opioid-related disorders, as per ICD-10, were tested for the associations with the expression of the pain-agnostic model. Results Of 195,808 CNCP patients included in the study, 110,712 (56.54%) were female and the mean (SD) age was 57.03 (8.02) years. 20,895 (11.7%) individuals from the train set, and 912 (5.4%) individuals from the test set used prescribed opioids. The pain and pain-agnostic models predicted opioid use with a good classification accuracy (AUC pain = 0.70, AUC pain-agnostic = 0.75). Models showed acceptable classification accuracy for predicting within-individual changes in opioid use between the baseline and follow-up visit. The pain-agnostic model was highly expressed in CNCP patients diagnosed with an opioid-related disorder. Levels of CRP were significantly associated with the expression of the pain-agnostic model (r = 0.26, p<0.001). Conclusion Our results show a dissociation between opioid users and non-opioid users at two time points. This study suggests that a pattern of psychosocial risk factors associated with a biological marker of inflammation could be a common predictor for opioid use among chronic non-cancer pain patients. Identifying the associated characteristics in these individuals could help improve the assessment of risks and benefits of chronic opioid use in certain subpopulations and will be a step towards improving the safety and effectiveness of chronic pain treatment
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".