MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902540736 · doi:10.1002/ejp.1348

What do you expect? Catastrophizing mediates associations between expectancies and pain‐facilitatory processes

2018· article· en· W2902540736 on OpenAlexaff
Junie S. Carrière, Marc O. Martel, Samantha M. Meints, Marise Cornelius, Robert R. Edwards

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Pain · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsPain catastrophizingMediationPhysical therapyChronic painMedicineAssociation (psychology)PsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pain expectancies are associated with altered pain sensitivity in individuals with chronic pain. However, little is known about the processes by which pain expectancies impact pain processing. This study assessed the association between pain expectancies and temporal summation (TS) of pain, and examined whether pain catastrophizing mediated this association. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, participants (437 chronic low back pain [CLBP] patients, 115 controls) completed self-report measures of pain intensity, pain expectancies and pain catastrophizing before undergoing psychophysical pain-testing procedures designed to assess mechanical TS of mechanical pain. Pearson's correlations examined the associations between study variables in CLBP patients and controls. Bootstrapping mediation analyses assessed the mediating role of pain catastrophizing on the association between pain expectancies and TS of pain. RESULTS: Temporal summation of pain was significantly associated with pain expectancies (r = 0.113) and pain catastrophizing (r = 0.171) in CLBP patients. Results of mediation analyses revealed that pain catastrophizing mediated the relationship between pain expectancies and TS of pain in CLBP patients (ab = 0.309, 95% CI = 0.1222-0.5604), but not in healthy controls (ab = -0.125, 95% CI = -0.5864 to 0.0244). CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study suggest that compared to controls, CLBP patients show increased sensitivity to mechanical pain procedures and enhanced pain-facilitatory processing, proving further evidence for changes in central nervous system pain processing in CLBP patients. Our results also suggest that pain catastrophizing may be the mechanism by which pain expectancies are associated with TS of pain in CLBP patients. SIGNIFICANCE: Individuals with chronic low back pain who expect higher levels of pain and catastrophize about their pain are more likely to experience altered pain sensitivity. Our results point to catastrophizing as a mechanism of action through which psychological factors may operate and lead to the development and maintenance of chronic low back 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of PainSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207