MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998649460 · doi:10.1080/16506070600898397

Tendency to Catastrophize Somatic Sensations: Pain Catastrophizing and Anxiety Sensitivity in Predicting Headache

2006· article· en· W1998649460 on OpenAlexafffund
Deanna N. Drahovzal, Sherry H. Stewart, Michael Sullivan

Bibliographic record

VenueCognitive Behaviour Therapy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchKillam TrustsDalhousie University
KeywordsAnxiety sensitivityPain catastrophizingAnxietyPsychologyMigraineClinical psychologyPhysical therapyChronic painPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

General catastrophic thinking styles about uncomfortable bodily sensations may predispose the development of common health pathologies, such as persistent headache. The purpose of this research was to explore the relationships between the Pain Catastrophizing (PC) Scale and Anxiety Sensitivity (AS) Index, which measure tendencies to catastrophize pain- and anxiety-related somatic sensations, respectively. A non-clinical sample completed the PC Scale, AS Index, and health outcome questionnaires regarding headache (n = 1018). Results revealed that: (i) AS and PC are empirically separate constructs; (ii) the overlap between PC and AS lies within the domain of fearing physical catastrophe; (iii) AS independently predicts weekly headache, headache pain intensity, and the number of a wide range of physical symptoms associated with headache; and (iv) PC independently predicts the presence of weekly headache. Limitations and implications of this research, as well as recommendations for future research directions are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations104
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCognitive Behaviour TherapySame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207