MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Alexithymia and Pain in Three Chronic Pain Samples: Comparing Caucasians and African Americans

2005· article· en· W2051657770 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark A. Lumley, Alison M. Radcliffe, Debra J. Macklem, Angelia Mosley‐Williams, James C. C. Leisen, Jennifer Huffman, Pamela J. D’Souza, Mazy Gillis, Tina M. Meyer, Christina A. Kraft, Lisa J. Rapport

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Medicine · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersArthritis Foundation
KeywordsAlexithymiaMedicineToronto Alexithymia ScaleClinical psychologyChronic painSocioeconomic statusHeadachesPsychiatryInternal medicinePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: African Americans often report greater pain than do Caucasians, but the factors responsible for this discrepancy are not known. We examined whether alexithymia-the trait of difficulty identifying and describing one's feelings and lacking introspection-may contribute to this ethnic group difference. We tested whether the mean level of alexithymia is higher, and whether alexithymia and pain are more highly correlated, among African Americans than among Caucasians in patients with chronic pain disorders. DESIGN: Three cross-sectional, correlational studies were conducted on three separate samples of patients with chronic pain. Analyses examined the full sample and then Caucasians and African Americans separately. SETTING AND PATIENTS: Patients were recruited primarily from treatment settings. Samples were patients with rheumatoid arthritis (N = 155), migraine headaches (N = 160), or systemic lupus erythematosus (N = 123), and each sample included only Caucasians or African Americans. MEASURES: The Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20 assessed global alexithymia and three alexithymia facets. Pain severity, functional disability, or symptoms were also measured on each sample. RESULTS: Similar findings occurred across all three samples. African Americans had only slightly higher mean alexithymia levels than did Caucasians, and this was partly accounted for by socioeconomic differences between groups. More importantly, alexithymia correlated only weakly with pain or symptom severity for each full sample, but the two ethnic groups showed different patterns. Alexithymia correlated positively with pain severity among African Americans, but was uncorrelated with pain among Caucasians, even after covarying for various socioeconomic variables. CONCLUSIONS: Alexithymia is more correlated with pain severity among African Americans with chronic pain disorders than among Caucasians, potentially contributing to the higher pain reports among African Americans.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations68
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain MedicineSame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207