ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Latent pain class identification, longitudinal transitions, and machine learning prediction of incident low back pain in middle-aged and older Chinese adults.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveChronic pain is common among middle-aged and older Chinese adults, yet latent pain patterns, temporal transitions, and individual susceptibility factors remain unclear. Using five waves of the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study, we assessed latent pain classes, their dynamic changes, and key predictors of low back pain (LBP) in adults aged ≥ 45 years.
methodsLatent class analysis (LCA) was used to identify pain-site patterns at each wave, and Kendall correlations assessed associations among sites. Latent transition analysis (LTA) evaluated temporal shifts and the modifying effects of age and sex. For LBP, we developed machine-learning models (logistic regression, random forest, decision tree, extreme gradient boosting, light gradient boosting machine, support vector machine, artificial neural network), optimized through multiple imputation, feature engineering, and grid search. A nomogram was constructed from features consistently important across artificial neural network, logistic regression, and extreme gradient boosting, followed by subgroup and mediation analyses.
resultsLCA identified 2–4 classes per wave, summarized into three pain states: widespread pain, localized pain, and no pain. Lumbar pain was most common. LTA confirmed the three-state model and nine transition pathways; the no-pain state showed highest stability (82.3%). Men were more likely to enter or remain in pain states (p < 0.05), and older adults without pain were more likely to shift to localized pain (p < 0.05). Artificial neural network achieved the best performance in the test set. SHapley additive explanations analyses based on multiple machine-learning models consistently identified the center for epidemiologic studies depression scale-10 items, cumulative chronic disease burden, and activities of daily living function as the strongest predictors of LBP. Seven stable predictors were used to build a nomogram with favorable discrimination (C-index = 0.783), calibration, and clinical utility.
conclusionPain patterns in middle-aged and older Chinese adults show substantial heterogeneity and dynamic transitions. Psychological status, chronic disease burden, and functional capacity are the key predictors of LBP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.