Psychological influences on repetition-induced summation of activity-related pain in patients with chronic low back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the role of pain catastrophizing, fear of movement and depression as determinants of repetition-induced summation of activity-related pain. The sample consisted of 90 (44 women and 46 men) work-disabled individuals with chronic low back pain. Participants were asked to lift a series of 18 canisters that varied according to weight (2.9kg, 3.4kg, 3.9kg) and distance from the body. The canisters were arranged in a 3x6 matrix and the weights were distributed such that each 'column' of three canisters was equated in terms of physical demands. Participants rated their pain after each lift, and in a separate trial, estimated the weight of each canister. Mean activity-related pain ratings were computed for each Column of the task. An index of repetition-induced summation of pain was derived as the change in pain ratings across the six 'columns' of the task. Pain catastrophizing, fear of movement and depression were significantly correlated with condition-related pain (e.g., MPQ) and activity-related pain ratings. Women rated their pain as more intense than men, and estimated weights to be greater than men. A repetition-induced summation of pain effect was observed where pain ratings increased as participants lifted successive canisters. Fear of movement, but not pain catastrophizing or depression, was associated with greater repetition-induced summation of pain. The findings point to possible neurophysiological mechanisms that could help explain why fear of pain is a robust predictor of pain-related disability. Mechanisms of repetition-induced summation of activity-related pain 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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".