The chicken or the egg: Longitudinal changes in pain and catastrophizing in women with interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Evidence-based psychological strategies are being used as clinicians look for helpful interventions for patients diagnosed with the enigmatic chronic urological pelvic pain condition of interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (IC/BPS). Pain and pain catastrophizing are associated with chronic pelvic pain outcomes but the longitudinal role of catastrophizing on patient pain in IC/BPS remains unknown. METHODS: Women with IC/BPS were recruited from tertiary care clinics across North America and completed a battery of questionnaires, including demographics, pain, depression, catastrophizing at baseline, six months, and one year. RESULTS: A total of 226 patients completed baseline questions, 183 completed the six-month survey, and 151 completed the one-year survey. Using a cross-lagged analysis, early changes in pain catastrophizing predicted later changes in pain, but not vice versa. Followup subscale analyses revealed that early changes in magnification predicted later changes in pain, early changes in pain predicted later changes in rumination, and that there was a recursive relationship between changes in helplessness and changes in pain across the study. CONCLUSIONS: Pain catastrophizing should be considered a prime target in psychological treatment for chronic pain in patients with IC/BPS, particularly those thinking styles associated with pain onset and maintenance. Future research should be conducted with constructs such as pain catastrophizing in samples prioritizing diversity of patients with IC/BPS and mechanisms as to how to effectively decrease catastrophizing.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".