Psychological Factors Are Related to Pain Intensity in Back‐Healthy People Who Develop Clinically Relevant Pain During Prolonged Standing: A Preliminary Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An induced-pain paradigm has been used to examine risk factors for the development of low back pain (LBP) during prolonged standing in back-healthy people (standing paradigm). Previous studies that used induced-pain methods suggest that pain intensity may be related to psychologic factors. It is not currently known, however, whether pain intensity reported during the standing paradigm is related to psychologic factors. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between LBP symptom intensity and psychological factors (fear of pain and pain catastrophizing) in back-healthy people who develop LBP during prolonged standing. We hypothesized that symptom intensity during standing would be positively related to initial levels of fear of pain and pain catastrophizing in people who developed LBP during standing. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Movement science research center at an academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty seven back-healthy participants. METHODS: Participants completed the Fear of Pain Questionnaire-III (FPQ-III) and Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) before a 2-hour standing protocol. Participants rated LBP intensity on a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) throughout standing and were classified as pain developers (PDs) or nonpain developers (NPDs). Relationships between LBP intensity and psychological measures were examined in PDs that did and did not have a ≥20 mm maximum VAS score. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: FPQ-III and PCS total scores, maximum and average VAS scores during standing. RESULTS: There were 24 (42%) PDs. Five PDs reported a maximum VAS score ≥20 mm. For PDs with a maximum VAS score <20 mm, correlations between average VAS scores and each psychological measure were small and nonsignificant (FPQ-III: r = 0.16, P = .50; PCS: r = 0.27, P = .26). For PDs with a maximum VAS score ≥20 mm, correlation between average VAS scores and FPQ-III was large and significant (r = 0.91, P = .03), and large for PCS but nonsignificant (r = 0.87, P = .06). CONCLUSION: These preliminary data suggest that if pain exceeds a clinically meaningful threshold (20 mm) during standing, pain intensity is related to psychological factors. Understanding factors that modulate acute pain response can inform early intervention strategies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".