Catastrophizing is related to pain ratings, but not nociceptive flexion reflex threshold
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Catastrophizing is reliably associated with increased reports of clinical and experimental pain. To test the hypothesis that catastrophizing may heighten pain experience by increasing nociceptive transmission through spinal gating mechanisms, the present study examined catastrophizing as a predictor of pain ratings and nociceptive flexion reflex (NFR) thresholds in 88 young adult men (n=47) and women (n=41). The NFR threshold was defined as the intensity of electrocutaneous sural nerve stimulation required to elicit a withdrawal response from the biceps femoris muscle of the ipsilateral leg. Participants completed an assessment of their NFR threshold and then provided pain ratings using both a numerical rating scale (NRS) and the short-form McGill pain questionnaire (SF-MPQ). Pain catastrophizing was assessed using the catastrophizing subscale of the coping strategies questionnaire (CSQ). Although catastrophizing was positively related to both NRS and SF-MPQ pain ratings, catastrophizing was not significantly related to NFR threshold. These findings suggest that differential modulation of spinal nociceptive input may not account for the relationship between catastrophizing and increased pain.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".