Pain catastrophizing in athletes correlates with pain and cardiovascular changes during a painful cold pressor test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Athletes are often exposed to pain due to injury and competition. There is preliminary evidence that cardiovascular measures could be an objective measure of pain, but the cardiovascular response can be influenced by psychological factors such as catastrophizing. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of our study was to use a painful cold pressor test to measure the relationship between catastrophizing, pain, and cardiovascular variables in athletes. DESIGN: Pre-post test. SETTING: We completed all measures in a laboratory setting. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-six male rugby athletes participated in the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We measured catastrophizing with the Pain Catastrophizing Scale and pain with a Numeric Pain Rating Scale. Cardiovascular measures included heart rate, systolic, and diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate variability. RESULTS: During the cold pressor test, participants experienced a significant increase in pain (0 to 4.1±2.2), systolic blood pressure (126.7±16.5mm Hg to 149.7±23.4mm Hg), diastolic blood pressure (76.9±8.3mm Hg to 91.9±11.5mm Hg) and heart rate variability (from 0.0164ms±0.0121 to 0.0400ms±0.0323) (all p<.001). In addition, there was a significant decrease in heart rate after the cold pressor test (p=0.04). There was a significant correlation between athlete's pain catastrophizing to both pain intensity and change in heart rate during the cold pressor test (p=.017 and p=.003 respectively). A significant linear regression indicated pain and catastrophizing explained 29% of the variance of the change in heart rate (p=.003). CONCLUSION: Athletes who have catastrophizing thoughts are more likely to experience higher levels of pain and a greater cardiovascular response during a painful stimulus. The change in cardiovascular variables may be a good alternative for an objective measure of pain in athletes in the future.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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".