Catastrophizing as a mediator of sex differences in pain: differential effects for daily pain versus laboratory-induced pain
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sex differences in the experience of pain have been widely reported, with females generally reporting more frequent clinical pain and demonstrating greater pain sensitivity. However, the mechanisms underpinning such differences, while subject to intense speculation, are not well-characterized. Catastrophizing is a cognitive and affective process that relates strongly to enhanced reports of pain and that varies as a function of sex. It is thus a prime candidate to explain sex differences; indeed, several prior studies offer evidence that controlling for catastrophizing eliminates the gap between men and women in reported pain. We recruited 198 healthy young adults (115 female) who took part in laboratory studies of pain responses, including thermal pain, cold pain, and ischemic pain, and who also completed questionnaires assessing catastrophizing, mood, and day-to-day painful symptoms (e.g. headache, backache). Women reported greater levels of catastrophizing, more recent painful symptoms, and demonstrated lower pain thresholds and tolerances for noxious heat and cold relative to men. Mediational analyses suggested that after controlling for negative mood, catastrophizing mediated the sex difference in recent daily pain but did not mediate the much larger sex differences in pain threshold and tolerance. These findings highlight the role of catastrophizing in shaping pain responses, as well as illuminating potentially important differences between experimental pain assessment and the clinical experience of pain.
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.
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 | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it