Psychological predictors of pain expression and activity intolerance in chronic pain patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research suggests that communicative and protective pain behaviors represent functionally distinct subsystems of behavior associated with pain. The present research examined whether components of pain experience such as pain severity, catastrophizing and fear of pain were differentially associated with communicative and protective pain behaviors. It was predicted that pain severity would be associated with decreased physical tolerance and heightened expression of pain behavior. It was also predicted that pain catastrophizing would be preferentially associated with communicative pain behaviors, and fear of pain would be preferentially associated with protective pain behaviors and decreased physical tolerance. To test these predictions, work-disabled patients with musculoskeletal pain conditions (N=72) were filmed as they participated in a simulated occupational lifting task. Multiple regressions revealed that pain severity was uniquely associated with decreased physical tolerance and increased expression of protective pain behaviors. Pain catastrophizing was uniquely associated with the expression of both communicative and protective pain behaviors. Fear of pain was associated with physical tolerance and protective pain behaviors but not when controlling for pain severity. This study provides additional evidence for the functional distinctiveness of different types of pain expression and provides preliminary evidence for the functional distinctiveness of pain expression and activity intolerance. Discussion addresses the processes by which psychological factors might influence the display of different types of pain behaviors. Discussion also addresses how different types of interventions might be required to specifically target the sensory and behavioral dimensions of the pain system.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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".