Parent–child interactions among children with juvenile fibromyalgia, arthritis, and healthy controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parent-child interactions during pain-inducing exercise tasks among children (11-17 years old) with fibromyalgia, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, and pain-free controls were examined and the contribution of parent-child interactions to disability was tested. Fifteen children in each of the three diagnostic groups and their parents completed 5-min exercise tasks and completed questionnaire measures of disability (Functional Disability Inventory) and coping (Pain Coping Questionnaire). There were few group differences in parent-child interactions. After controlling for children's ratings of pain evoked by the exercise, group differences in interactions during exercise tasks were no longer significant. Sequential analyses, controlling for group and exercise task, revealed that when parents made statements discouraging coping following children's negative verbalizations about the task or pain, children were less likely to be on task, compared to when parents made statements encouraging coping or when parents made any other statements. Children's general pain coping strategies were not related to parent-child interactions. Parent-child interactions were generally not related to disability. Across the groups, more pain and less time on task during the exercises were related to Functional Disability Inventory scores and more school absences. Parent-child interaction patterns influence children's adaptation to pain during experimental tasks. Parents' discouragement of coping in response to their children's negative statements related to the pain or the pain-evoking task are counter productive to children's ability to maintain activity in a mildly painful situation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".