The influence of children’s pain memories on subsequent pain experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Healthy children are often required to repeatedly undergo painful medical procedures (eg, immunizations). Although memory is often implicated in children's reactions to future pain, there is a dearth of research directly examining the relationship between the 2. The current study investigated the influence of children's memories for a novel pain stimulus on their subsequent pain experience. One hundred ten healthy children (60 boys) between the ages of 8 and 12 years completed a laboratory pain task and provided pain ratings. Two weeks later, children provided pain ratings based on their memories as well as their expectancies about future pain. One month following the initial laboratory visit, children again completed the pain task and provided pain ratings. Results showed that children's memory of pain intensity was a better predictor of subsequent pain reporting than their actual initial reporting of pain intensity, and mediated the relationship between initial and subsequent pain reporting. Children who had negatively estimated pain memories developed expectations of greater pain prior to a subsequent pain experience and showed greater increases in pain ratings over time than children who had accurate or positively estimated pain memories. These findings highlight the influence of pain memories on healthy children's expectations of future pain and subsequent pain experiences and extend predictive models of subsequent pain reporting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".