A Cumulative Impact of Psychological and Sensitization Risk Factors on Pain‐Related Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Risk constructs based on psychological risk factors (eg, pain catastrophizing, PC) and sensitization risk factors (eg, pressure pain threshold, PPT) are important in research and clinical practice. Most research looks at individual constructs but does not consider how different constructs might interact within the same individual. An evaluation of the cumulative impact of psychological and sensitization risk factors on pain-related outcomes may help guide us in the risk assessment of patients with pain conditions. The aim of this study is to evaluate the cumulative impact of these psychological (PC) and sensitization (PPT) risk factors on pain-related outcomes (activity avoidance, pain severity, and disability) considering covariates. METHODS: We included 109 participants (70.60% women; mean ± SD age 53.6 ± 12.3 years) with chronic musculoskeletal pain for data analysis, who completed all measures of this study. Participants completed a single testing session that included measures of risk factors (PC and PPT) and pain-related outcomes (self-reported avoidance, functional avoidance, disability, and pain severity). Subgroups were constructed by dichotomizing of PC and PPT scores, resulting in four groups: (1) low catastrophizing and low sensitivity (N = 26), (2) high catastrophizing and low sensitivity (N = 27), (3) low catastrophizing and high sensitivity (N = 25), and (4) high catastrophizing and high sensitivity (N = 31). RESULTS: = 0.08 to 0.14) in all outcomes of this study (except functional avoidance), and post hoc analysis indicated the significant differences are between group 1 and 4. A cumulative impact is reflected by large effect sizes between group 1 and 4 (d = 0.8 to 1). The group 2 and 3 (one risk dimension groups: either high-PC or high-PPT) represent 47% of the total participants. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests both higher level of PC and pressure sensitivity have a cumulative impact on risk screening for pain-related outcomes, considering gender in functional avoidance (task-related outcome). A clinical presentation with high-PC (one dimension of risk) is not associated with high-PPT (another dimension of risk). This finding has important clinical and theoretical implications.
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 | 0.002 | 0.056 |
| 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".