Remembering pain after surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children's memories for pain play a powerful role in their pain experiences. Parents' memories may also influence children's pain experiences, by influencing parent-child interactions about pain and children's cognitions and behaviors. Pain catastrophizing of children and parents has been implicated as a factor underlying memory biases; however, this has not been empirically examined. The current longitudinal study is the first to examine the role of pain catastrophizing of children and parents in the development of their pain memories after surgery. Participants were 49 youth (32 girls) aged 10 to 18 years undergoing major surgery and their parents. One week before surgery, children and parents completed measures of pain catastrophizing. Two weeks after surgery (the acute recovery period), children and parents completed measures of child pain intensity and affect. Two to 4 months after surgery, children's and parents' memories of child pain intensity and affect were elicited. Hierarchical linear regression models revealed that over and above covariates, parent catastrophizing about their child's pain (magnification, rumination) accounted for a significant portion of variance in children's affective and parents' sensory pain memories. Although parent catastrophizing had a direct effect on pain memories, mediation analyses revealed that child catastrophizing (helplessness) indirectly influenced children's and parents' pain memories through the child's postoperative pain experience. Findings highlight that aspects of catastrophic thinking about child pain before surgery are linked to distressing pain memories several months later. Although both child and parent catastrophizing influence pain memory development, parent catastrophizing is most influential to both children's and parents' evolving cognitions about child pain.
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 | 0.019 | 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".