Attention and Working Memory in Female Adolescents With Chronic Pain and Pain-free Female Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Adolescents with chronic pain often report inattention and poor memory. There has been little research on cognitive function in this population. The goal of this preliminary pilot study was to examine differences in cognitive function between adolescents with chronic pain to pain-free adolescents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All participants completed baseline assessments of pain, school absences, depression, anxiety, and sleep habits. Standardized neurocognitive tests were used to examine cognitive function with a focus on working memory and attention. RESULTS: Recruitment from the chronic pain clinic resulted in a female sample of 13 individuals (largely reflective of the clinical population). Pain-free age-matched and sex-matched individuals (n=12) were therefore also recruited as controls. Individuals with chronic pain had significantly lower working memory scores than controls. Differences were found between groups on the most difficult selective attention task and not on tests of sustained attention, divided attention, or attentional switching. In a stepwise regression with baseline characteristics entered in the first step, pain accounted for approximately 15% of the variance in working memory and medication score counted for 49% of the variance. DISCUSSION: This pilot study is the first study to examine differences in working memory and attention between participants with chronic pain and pain-free adolescents. Our findings suggest that chronic pain may negatively affect adolescents' working memory function and highlights the risk for cognitive difficulties and problems with educational progression in addition to negative health and social effects associated with chronic pain. The study provides a starting point for more research and has the potential to direct better identification and treatment of these cognitive deficits.
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 | 0.033 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".