Somatic, affective, and pain characteristics of chronic TMD patients with sexual versus physical abuse histories.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study examined whether temporomandibular disorder (TMD) patients with sexual versus physical abuse histories differ in their pain report, psychological distress, and somatic symptoms. METHODS: Participants were 114 female TMD patients. The sample was divided into 3 groups based on abuse history: sexual abuse, physical abuse, or no abuse. Abuse histories were assessed with a structured clinical interview. Measures used included the McGill Pain Questionnaire, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, the Beck Depression Inventory, and the Pennebaker Inventory of Limbic Languidness. Group differences were analyzed by analysis of variance and Bonferroni post hoc comparisons. RESULTS: Temporomandibular disorder patients with a history of physical abuse reported significantly more pain, anxiety, and depressive symptoms than did patients with a history of sexual abuse or no history of abuse. Furthermore, the results suggest that TMD patients with a sexual abuse history are not significantly different from patients with no abuse history across the domains studied. CONCLUSION: Based on the differences found, it can be argued that assessment of physical abuse histories by appropriately trained clinicians should be a routine part of any multimodal assessment of female chronic TMD patients.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".