Acute psychosocial stress reduces pain modulation capabilities in healthy men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anecdotes on the ability of individuals to continue to function under stressful conditions despite injuries causing excruciating pain suggest that acute stress may induce analgesia. However, studies exploring the effect of acute experimental stress on pain perception show inconsistent results, possibly due to methodological differences. Our aim was to systematically study the effect of acute stress on pain perception using static and dynamic, state-of-the-art pain measurements. Participants were 29 healthy men who underwent the measurement of heat-pain threshold, heat-pain intolerance, temporal summation of pain, and conditioned pain modulation (CPM). Testing was conducted before and during exposure to the Montreal Imaging Stress Task (MIST), inducing acute psychosocial stress. Stress levels were evaluated using perceived ratings of stress and anxiety, autonomic variables, and salivary cortisol. The MIST induced a significant stress reaction. Although pain threshold and pain intolerance were unaffected by stress, an increase in temporal summation of pain and a decrease in CPM were observed. These changes were significantly more robust among individuals with stronger reaction to stress ("high responders"), with a significant correlation between the perception of stress and the performance in the pain measurements. We conclude that acute psychosocial stress seems not to affect the sensitivity to pain, however, it significantly reduces the ability to modulate pain in a dose-response manner. Considering the diverse effects of stress in this and other studies, it appears that the type of stress and the magnitude of its appraisal determine its interactions with the pain 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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".