Pain-related fear and avoidance of physical exertion following delayed-onset muscle soreness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study examined the relationship between pain-related fear, physical performance, and pain-related interference in the context of experimentally induced pain to the lower back. Thirty healthy participants completed a test of maximal trunk strength before and after induction of delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS) to the trunk extensors. Pain-related fear (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia and Pain Anxiety Symptom Scale) was assessed prior to DOMS induction, and measures of current pain and pain-related interference with life activities were obtained 1 day after DOMS induction. As predicted, pain-related fear was not related to strength production prior to DOMS induction. However, following DOMS induction, pain-related fear predicted reduced maximal strength production, individual decrement in maximal strength performance, and increased pain-related interference in life activities. Current pain intensity and anthropometric factors did not contribute significantly to these outcome measures. To our knowledge, this is the first study to identify the impact of pain-related fear on physical performance among a healthy group of individuals following experimental acute low back injury. The findings extend previous research on psychological variables and simulated injury, and suggest that pain-related fear may be an important vulnerability factor in development of disability following acute pain experience.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".