Evaluating the novel added value of neurophysiological pain sensitivity within the fear‐avoidance model of pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".