<p>Chronic Pain Patients’ Kinesiophobia and Catastrophizing are Associated with Activity Intensity at Different Times of the Day</p>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the relationship between baseline kinesiophobia and baseline pain catastrophizing with the 4-day average activity intensity at different times of the day while accounting for different wake and sleep-onset times in chronic pain patients. METHODS: Twenty-one participants suffering from idiopathic chronic pain completed baseline questionnaires about kinesiophobia, catastrophizing, disability, depression, and pain. We measured the participants' activity using accelerometers and calculated activity intensity in the morning, afternoon, and evening. We performed a 2-way repeated measures ANOVA to compare activity levels at different times of the day, and multiple linear regressions. RESULTS: Baseline kinesiophobia was significantly associated with 4-day average evening light activity and sedentary activity at all time periods while baseline catastrophizing was significantly associated with increased 4-day average light activity in the evening and more moderate to vigorous activity in the morning. Our participants engaged in more light activity on average than sedentary activity, and very little moderate-vigorous activity. Participants were most active in the afternoon. CONCLUSION: Baseline kinesiophobia and baseline catastrophizing were not associated with the 4-day average total daily activity; however, they were associated with 4-day average activity intensities at different times throughout the day. Segmenting daily activity into morning, afternoon, evening may influence the relationship between daily activity, and kinesiophobia and pain catastrophizing. Individuals with chronic pain are less sedentary than previously thought which may affect future interventions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| 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".