Two‐Week Test–Retest Stability of the Cold Pressor Task Procedure at two different Temperatures as a Measure of Pain Threshold and Tolerance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The cold pressor task (CPT) was originally developed as a clinically indicative cardiovascular test, and quantifies vascular response and pulse excitability when a subject's hand is immersed into ice water. Since the test procedure results in a gradually increasing cold pain, the CPT has been widely used as a nociceptive stimulus in experimental studies on adults and children. AIM: To evaluate the test-retest stability of response patterns using the CPT as a measure of pain threshold and pain tolerance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the present study, sixty-one undergraduate students received painful stimulation using the CPT either at 4°C or 6°C. Measurements of pain threshold, pain tolerance and pain intensity ratings using the short form of the McGill pain questionnaire (SF-MPQ), were derived. The assessment was repeated twice over an interval of 2 weeks. Test-Retest stability was assessed within a three-layered approach, using ANOVAs, interclass correlation coefficients and standard error of the mean. A Bland-Altman analysis was also performed. Possible predictors of pain threshold and pain tolerance were assessed using random effect panel regression models. RESULTS: No significant differences emerged as a function of temperature (4°C or 6°C) on pain threshold, pain tolerance, and pain ratings. Environmental variables (room temperature and humidity) show no impact on measures of pain threshold and pain tolerance. CONCLUSION: Consistent with previous findings, regression analysis reveals that age is significantly associated with pain tolerance. The CPT procedure shows excellent 2 week test-retest stability to assess pain threshold and pain tolerance within a student population.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".