Mental Defeat in Chronic Pain: Initial Exploration of the Concept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: "Mental defeat" has been found to be an important psychologic reaction to painful trauma. Chronic pain patients also report mental defeat in relation to their experience of pain episodes. A measure of mental defeat was devised and evaluated in terms of (1) psychometric properties and (2) specificity of scores in relation to disabling chronic pain. METHODS: A total of 304 participants completed the Pain Self Perception Scale, a questionnaire designed to measure mental defeat as a reaction to pain. Participants also completed the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Chronic pain patients from a tertiary hospital clinic (n=94) were compared with patients experiencing acute pain (n=38), pain-free controls (n=79), community volunteers suffering from chronic pain (n=32) or acute pain (n=30), and patients diagnosed with anxiety disorders (n=31). Test-retest reliability was assessed in subsamples of chronic pain patients and community volunteers. RESULTS: The mental defeat measure was both internally consistent and reliable. Chronic pain patients showed elevated levels of mental defeat relative to all other groups, including people with chronic pain of the same intensity of pain who were not seeking treatment. Pain-specific mental defeat may be linked to disability and the seeking of specialist treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Research on mental defeat may allow the development of new treatment strategies for chronic pain syndromes and a better understanding of the link between chronic pain, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder.
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 | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| 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".