Pain Behavior and the Development of Pain-related Disability: The Importance of Guarding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine prospectively the association between the 4 categories of objectively assessed pain behavior and various disability outcomes. In the present study, relationships among the 4 categories of pain behavior and various disability-related outcomes were examined. METHODS: One hundred forty-eight workers were identified within 6 weeks of a first episode of low-back pain in the workplace. During a physical examination, observations were made of guarding, words, sounds, and facial expressions of pain. Three months later, participants were evaluated with respect to return to work and standardized self-report measures of pain-related disability. Administrative records were examined to determine the number of days lost and costs associated with their rehabilitation. RESULTS: Only guarding showed consistent prospective associations with all disability outcomes. When examined in the context of other variables that have been associated with disability in the same population, guarding showed consistent independent associations. DISCUSSION: Guarding behavior may play a role in the transition from acute to chronic pain. The findings underscore the multidimensional nature of pain behavior and suggest that there is value in examining overt pain behaviors in prospective studies of the development of chronic occupational pain disability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".