MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107228823 · doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsl036

Temperament and Pain Reactivity Predict Health Behavior Seven Years Later

2006· article· en· W2107228823 on OpenAlexafffund
E. M. Rocha, Ken Prkachin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Psychology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsTemperamentSomatizationPsychosocialReactivity (psychology)PsychologyPersonalityClinical psychologyPsychiatryAnxietyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Minor illnesses and major diseases are affected by individual, environmental, and social factors. We sought to determine if children's temperament and pain reactivity (individual response styles) measured in kindergarten are related to future health behavior. METHODS: Seven-year follow-up measures of health behavior were gathered in 42 children (mean age M = 11 years) who participated in a previous study of pain reactivity and somatization. Current health behavior was compared with children's pain reactivity and temperament measured in kindergarten. RESULTS: Pain reactivity in kindergarten was associated with children's self-reports of somatization 7 years later, independent of their temperament. Temperament was related to children's self-reports of somatization and to maternal reports of health care utilization and psychosocial health status. CONCLUSIONS: Early response styles (i.e., heightened pain reactivity and difficulty adjusting) may indicate risk for increased health care utilization and poorer health and well-being later in childhood.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations43
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric PsychologySame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207