Experimental Jaw Muscle Pain Increases Pain Scores and Jaw Movement Variability in Higher Pain Catastrophizers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To investigate differences between higher and lower pain catastrophizers in the effects of hypertonic saline-evoked jaw muscle pain on pain perception and jaw movement. METHODS: Repetitive open/close jaw movements were recorded in 28 asymptomatic participants (20 men, 8 women; ages 25 to 62 years) during continuous infusion of 5% hypertonic saline or isotonic saline into the right masseter muscle. All participants completed the McGill Pain Questionnaire; the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales; and the Jaw Function Limitation Scale. They were divided into two groups depending on the median Pain Catastrophizing Scale score. Statistical analyses involved multivariate analysis of variance, independent samples or paired t tests, and Pearson correlations (statistical α: P < .05). RESULTS: Pain intensity, unpleasantness, perceived area, and pain rating indices were significantly (P < .05) elevated in higher pain catastrophizers during hypertonic saline-evoked pain in comparison with lower catastrophizers. The higher catastrophizers exhibited significantly (P < .05) slower jaw velocity than the lower catastrophizers during hypertonic saline infusion in comparison with IS infusion. In comparison with lower catastrophizers, there was a significantly greater change in the percentage of coefficient of variation between hypertonic saline and isotonic saline infusions in higher catastrophizers for closing velocity and opening and closing amplitude. CONCLUSION: The increased reported pain intensity, pain areas, and pain rating indices are consistent with enhanced central sensitization processes in high-catastrophizing individuals. The slower velocity and greater variability of repetitive jaw movements in higher pain catastrophizing individuals in acute experimental pain may reflect changes in motor coordination as an example of avoidance behavior for the jaw motor system.
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 | 0.047 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".