Effect of somatosensory amplification and trait anxiety on experimentally induced orthodontic 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
The perception of pain varies considerably across individuals and is affected by psychological traits. This study aimed to investigate the combined effects of somatosensory amplification and trait anxiety on orthodontic pain. Five-hundred and five adults completed the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and the Somatosensory Amplification Scale (SSAS). Individuals with combined STAI and SSAS scores below the 20th percentile (LASA group: five men and 12 women; mean age ± SD = 22.4 ± 1.3 yr) or above the 80th percentile (HASA group: 13 men and seven women; mean age ± SD = 23.7 ± 1.0 yr) were selected and filled in the Oral Behaviors Checklist (OBC). Orthodontic separators were placed for 5 d in order to induce experimental pain. Visual analog scales (VAS) were administered to collect ratings for occlusal discomfort, pain, and perceived stress. Pressure pain thresholds (PPT) were measured. A mixed regression model was used to evaluate pain and discomfort ratings over the 5-d duration of the study. At baseline, the LASA group had statistically significantly higher PPT values for the masseter muscle than did the HASA group. During the experimental procedure, the HASA group had statistically significantly higher discomfort and pain. A significant difference in pain ratings during the 5 d of the study was found for subjects in the HASA group. Higher OBC values were statistically significantly positively associated with pain. Somatosensory amplification and trait anxiety substantially affect experimentally induced orthodontic 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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| 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 it