Anxiety Sensitivity Does Not Enhance Pain Signaling at the Spinal Level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Anxiety sensitivity (AS) is the fear of anxiety-related sensations and its perceived harmful consequences. AS is associated with enhanced pain and worsened pain outcomes, suggesting it is a contributing factor in acute and chronic pain. However, the mechanisms that mediate the relationship between AS and pain are currently unknown. This study assessed the relationship between AS and 2 measures of spinal nociceptive processes (ie, nociceptive flexion reflex and temporal summation of nociceptive flexion reflex) and measures of subjective pain. This allowed us to determine whether AS engages descending cerebrospinal processes to facilitate pain signaling at spinal levels. METHODS: AS was assessed in healthy men and women using the Anxiety Sensitivity Index-Revised. Then pain processing was assessed from electric pain threshold, nociceptive flexion reflex threshold, temporal summation of pain, temporal summation of nociceptive flexion reflex, and McGill Pain Questionnaire sensory and affective pain ratings. Associations among variables were assessed using Winsorized correlations (a robust and statistically powerful analytic method). RESULTS: AS was positively associated with sensory pain ratings, affective pain ratings, and temporal summation of pain, but was unrelated to all other outcomes. DISCUSSION: Given that AS was not significantly associated with measures of spinal nociception, these results suggest that AS may exert its influence on pain processing at the supraspinal, rather than the spinal level.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".