The association between anger expression and chronic pain intensity: evidence for partial mediation by endogenous opioid dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent work suggests that an expressive anger management style (anger-out) is associated with elevated acute pain sensitivity due to endogenous opioid antinociceptive dysfunction. We tested the hypothesis that this opioid dysfunction mediates the previously reported positive association between anger-out and chronic pain intensity. To assess endogenous opioid antinociception in the laboratory, 71 subjects with chronic low back pain received opioid blockade (8 mg naloxone i.v.) or placebo in counterbalanced order in separate sessions. During each, subjects participated in a 1-min finger pressure pain task followed by an ischemic forearm pain task, providing acute pain ratings on the McGill Pain Questionnaire-Short Form (MPQ) immediately following each task. Subjects also completed a 7-day chronic pain diary based on the MPQ between laboratory sessions. To index opioid antinociceptive function, blockade effects were derived, subtracting placebo from blockade condition pain ratings. Greater anger-out was associated with both smaller blockade effects (suggesting impaired opioid antinociception) and greater chronic pain intensity, and blockade effects were inversely associated with chronic pain intensity. Sequential hierarchical regressions suggested that opioid dysfunction partially mediates the positive association between anger-out and total MPQ chronic pain intensity. Inclusion of blockade effects in the first step of the regression resulted in a decrease from 7 to 3% in chronic pain variance accounted for by anger-out. Opioid dysfunction did not mediate the positive association between anger-in and chronic pain. These results provide preliminary support for the hypothesis that the positive association between anger expression and chronic pain intensity is mediated by opioid antinociceptive system dysfunction.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".