Sex differences in experimental pain among healthy children: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sex differences in response to experimental pain are commonly reported in systematic reviews in the adult literature. The objective of the present research was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of sex differences in healthy children's responses to experimental pain (e.g., cold pressor, heat pain, pressure pain) and, where possible, to conduct analyses separately for children and adolescents. A search was conducted of electronic databases for published papers in English of empirical research using experimental pain tasks to examine pain-related outcomes in healthy boys and girls between 0 and 18 years of age. Eighty articles were eligible for inclusion and were coded to extract information relevant to sex differences. The systematic review indicated that, across different experimental pain tasks, the majority of studies reported no significant differences between boys and girls on pain-related outcomes. However, the meta-analysis of available combined data found that girls reported significantly higher cold pressor pain intensity compared to boys in studies where the mean age of participants was greater than 12 years. Additionally, a meta-analysis of heat pain found that boys had significantly higher tolerance than girls overall, and boys had significantly higher heat pain threshold than girls in studies where the mean age of participants was 12 years or younger. These findings suggest that developmental stage may be relevant for understanding sex differences in pain.
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 | 0.016 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".