Relevance of Water Temperature, Apparatus, and Age to Children's Pain during the Cold Pressor Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective use of experimental pain in research depends on a thorough understanding of factors influencing their use. Although studies using the cold pressor task (CPT) have critically advanced our knowledge of pain mechanisms, assessment, and management in adults and children, the impact of identified methodological variability in its use is not known (ie, water temperature and apparatus); furthermore, whether methodological variations differentially impact children across development. METHODS: Pain outcomes were examined in 113 healthy children from three age groups (8- to 9-, 10- to 11-, and 12- to 14-year-olds) who completed three CPTs at different water temperatures (5, 7, 10°C) in counterbalanced order. Children were randomly assigned to one of two apparatus (ice- vs. electric-cooled) for all CPTs. Children's hand was warmed to its baseline temperature between CPTs. RESULTS: Colder water (2 to 3°C decreases) was associated with significantly higher pain intensity and unpleasantness, and lower pain tolerance and threshold. Older children (12 to 14 years) reported significantly worse pain intensity and unpleasantness as compared to 8- to 9-year-olds, likely due to longer pain tolerance. Pain outcomes in 10- to 11-year-olds fell between the other age groups, with significant differences for pain unpleasantness and pain tolerance (at 10°C). Higher pain-related fear and pain unpleasantness occurred with the electric-cooled apparatus. Girls had higher pain tolerance and threshold at all temperatures. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide critically important information about water temperature, apparatus, and child age on CPT pain responding. It informs design of future CPT studies and directs consideration of methodological variability and child age when interpreting study findings.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| 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".