Remembering the pain of surgery 1 year later: a longitudinal examination of anxiety in children's pain memory development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children who develop greater negatively-biased recall of pain (ie, recalled pain is higher than the initial pain report) following surgery are at risk for developing chronic pain; therefore, identifying risk factors for the development of biased pain memories is important. Higher anxiety has been implicated in the development of greater negatively-biased recall of pain; however, studies have not examined anxiety at multiple time points before and after a surgery and its relationship to children's postsurgical pain memories after 1 year. This prospective study examined a cohort of 237 children and adolescents undergoing major surgery. Anxiety sensitivity, pain catastrophizing, and pain anxiety were assessed at baseline, 48 to 72 hours after surgery, and at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Pain intensity at rest, movement-evoked pain intensity, and pain unpleasantness were assessed daily in hospital. Memories for pain were elicited via telephone 1-year post surgery. Findings revealed that children who had higher levels of anxiety at baseline and 48 to 72 hours after surgery developed greater negatively-biased recall of pain intensity 12 months after surgery. Specifically, higher anxiety sensitivity at baseline and greater tendencies to catastrophize about pain at baseline and in the immediate acute recovery phase were most strongly linked to greater negatively-biased recall of pain. Greater negatively-biased recall of pain was related to higher pain intensity at 6 and 12 months post surgery. Findings support conceptual models of anxiety and pain memory biases and can inform intervention efforts to reduce anxiety in the pre- and post-op periods to minimize negative biases in pain memories.
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 | 0.039 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".