MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909484006 · doi:10.1002/ejp.1364

Evaluating the novel added value of neurophysiological pain sensitivity within the fear‐avoidance model of pain

2019· article· en· W2909484006 on OpenAlexafffund
Zakir Uddin, Arthur Woznowski‐Vu, Daniel Flegg, Andrea Aternali, Rebekah Wickens, Timothy H. Wideman

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Pain · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchInstitut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et en Sécurité du Travail
KeywordsPain catastrophizingDepression (economics)Chronic painQuantitative sensory testingPsychologyAnxiety sensitivityNeurophysiologyClinical psychologyThreshold of painLow back painPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineSensory systemPsychiatryAnxietyInternal medicineNeuroscienceAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The fear-avoidance model (FAM) is a leading theoretical paradigm for explaining persistent pain following musculoskeletal injury. The model suggests that as injuries heal, pain-related outcomes are increasingly determined by psychological, rather than physiological factors. Increasing literature, however, suggests that neurophysiological processes related to pain sensitivity also play an important role in chronicity. To date, there has been limited research that has specifically explored the role of pain sensitivity within the FAM. This study addresses this gap by evaluating whether clinical measures of pain sensitivity help explain FAM-related outcomes, beyond model-relevant psychological predictors. METHODS: The study sample consisted of 80 adults with chronic and widespread musculoskeletal pain. Participants completed a single testing session that included measures of all of the major constructs of the FAM, including pain catastrophizing, pain-related fear, activity avoidance (self-report and functional measures), pain-related disability, depression and pain severity, as well as a battery of quantitative sensory testing that included measures of pressure pain threshold and temporal summation of mechanical pain across eight body sites. RESULTS: A series of hierarchical regression analyses revealed that after controlling for the psychological predictors of the FAM, indices of pain sensitivity significantly predicted 4 of the 5 FAM-related outcomes (p < 0.05). Depression was the only outcome not significantly predicted by pain sensitivity. Interestingly, measures of pain sensitivity, but not FAM psychological factors, predicted the functional measure of activity avoidance. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide further evidence for the importance of neurophysiological factors within the FAM and have important clinical and theoretical implications. SIGNIFICANCE: This study provides evidence for the unique and added value of neurophysiological factors within the Fear Avoidance Model of pain and for the importance of integrating both sensory and psychological factors within both theoretical paradigms and clinical management strategies.

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)0.076
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0760.015
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.261 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations26
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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