Overgeneral Autobiographical Memory in Patients with Chronic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Overgenerality and delay of the retrieval of autobiographical memory (AM) are well documented in a range of clinical conditions, particularly in patients with emotional disorder. The present study extended the investigation to chronic pain, attempting to identify whether the retrieval of AM in patients with chronic pain tends to be overgeneral or delayed. DESIGN: With an observational cross-sectional design, we evaluated the AM both in patients with chronic pain and healthy controls by Autobiographical Memory Test. Pain conditions were assessed using the pain diagnostic protocol, the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), and the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ). Emotion was assessed using the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) and the Beck Anxiety Inventory. SUBJECTS AND SETTINGS: Subjects included 176 outpatients with chronic pain lasting for at least 6 months and 170 healthy controls. RESULTS: 1) Compared with the healthy group, the chronic pain group had more overgeneral memories (OGMs) (F = 29.061, P < 0.01) and longer latency (F = 13.602, P < 0.01). 2) In the chronic pain group, the stepwise multiple regression models for variables predicting OGM were significant (P < 0.01). Specifically, the variance in OGM scores could be predicted by the BDI score (9.7%), pain chronicity (4.3%), PSEQ score (7.1%), and Affective Index (of SF-MPQ) score (2.7%). 3) In the chronic pain group, the stepwise multiple regression models for variables predicting latency were significant (P < 0.05). Specifically, the variance in latency could be predicted by age (3.1%), pain chronicity (2.7%), pain duration (4.3%), and PSEQ score (2.0%). CONCLUSIONS: The retrieval of AM in patients with chronic pain tends to be overgeneral and delayed, and the retrieval style of AM may be contributed to negative emotions and chronic pain conditions.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".