Blood pressure but not cortisol mediates stress effects on subsequent pain perception in healthy men and women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has demonstrated that exposure to acute stress may attenuate pain perception. Mechanisms of this effect in humans have not been determined. This study was conducted to determine the extent to which psychophysiological and adrenocortical responses to acute stress predict subsequent pain perception. One hundred and fifty-two healthy participants (80 women) were assigned to one of two conditions: rest followed by the cold pressor test (CPT; N=76) or stress followed by CPT (N=76). The stress protocol consisted of a public-speaking challenge. Participants rated their pain every 15 s during a 90-s hand CPT (0-4 degrees C), and they completed the short form of the McGill Pain Questionnaire. Salivary cortisol, mood, blood pressure (BP), and impedance cardiography measures were collected in both conditions. Women had lower BP and reported greater pain than men in both conditions (ps<0.01). Participants in the stress condition reported less pain during CPT than those in the rest condition (p=0.02). Regression analyses demonstrated that the stress effect on pain ratings was mediated by systolic BP level during stress; however, cortisol responses did not affect this relationship. Mood changes were independent predictors of pain. The study demonstrates that BP changes in response to stress mediate the stress-induced attenuation of pain perception.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".