MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082105983 · doi:10.1080/16506070510011557

Fear of Pain is Elevated in Adults with Co‐Occurring Trauma‐Related Stress and Social Anxiety Symptoms

2005· article· en· W2082105983 on OpenAlexafffund
Gordon J. G. Asmundson, R. Nicholas Carleton

Bibliographic record

VenueCognitive Behaviour Therapy · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAnxiety sensitivityAnxietyClinical psychologyPsychologySocial anxietyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to determine whether fear of pain and related fear constructs are elevated in people with co-occurring trauma-related stress and social anxiety symptoms relative to people with 1 or neither of these conditions. Eighty students were selected from a larger sample and divided into 4 equal groups comprising those with both high trauma-related stress and social anxiety symptom scores (TRS/SAS), only high trauma-related stress symptom scores (TRS), only high social anxiety symptom scores (SAS), or neither (N). Results indicated that the TRS/SAS group had significantly higher scores on all fear of pain measures, anxiety sensitivity, and illness/injury sensitivity than any other group, even when level of current pain was included as a covariate. These findings suggest that people with co-occurring trauma-related and social anxiety symptoms are most likely to be fearful of pain and to thereby be at increased risk of developing chronic and disabling pain. Implications for future research and treatment are discussed.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations35
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCognitive Behaviour TherapySame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207