Pain-related anxiety influences pain perception differently in men and women: A quantitative sensory test across thermal pain modalities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sexes differ with respect to perception of experimental pain. Anxiety influences pain perception more in men than in women; however, there lacks research exploring which anxiety constructs influence pain perception differentially between men and women. Furthermore, research examining whether depression is associated with pain perception differently between the sexes remains scant. The present investigation was designed to examine how trait anxiety, pain-related anxiety constructs (ie, fear of pain, pain-related anxiety, anxiety sensitivity), and depression are associated with pain perception between the sexes. A total of 95 nonclinical participants (55% women) completed measures assessing the constructs of interest and participated in quantitative sensory testing using heat and cold stimuli administered by a Medoc Pathway Pain and Sensory Evaluation System. The findings suggest that pain-related anxiety constructs, but not trait anxiety, are associated with pain perception. Furthermore, these constructs are associated with pain intensity ratings in men and pain tolerance levels in women. This contrasts with previous research suggesting that anxiety influences pain perception mostly or uniquely in men. Depression was not systematically associated with pain perception in either sex. Systematic relationships were not identified that allow conclusions regarding how fear of pain, pain-related anxiety, and anxiety sensitivity may contribute to pain perception differentially in men and women; however, anxiety sensitivity was associated with increased pain tolerance, a novel finding needing further examination. The results provide directions for future research and clinical endeavors and support that fear and anxiety are important features associated with hyperalgesia in both men and women.
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 | 0.034 | 0.009 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".