Positive affect and distraction enhance whereas negative affect impairs pain modulation in patients with recurrent low back pain and matched controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Pathophysiological causes of low back pain (LBP) remain generally unclear, so focus has shifted to psychosocial features and central pain processing. Effects of attentional and affective manipulation on conditioned pain modulation and tonic pain perception were examined in 30 patients with recurrent LBP in 2 sessions, one with and one without clinical pain, and compared with healthy participants. Phasic cuff pressure on one leg, scored on a Numerical Rating Scale, was used for test stimuli, and contralateral tonic cuff pain rated on an electronic Visual Analogue Scale was the conditioning stimulus (CS). Test stimuli were assessed before and during (1) control with no manipulation or CS, (2) 3 attentional manipulations (Flanker with or without CS or CS-Only), and (3) 3 affective manipulations (positive, neutral, and negative images) with CS. Greater inhibition of test stimuli Numerical Rating Scale scores was observed in CS-only (P = 0.028), combined CS&attention (P = 0.026), and CS&Positive (P = 0.006) than control paradigms, and greater in CS&Positive (P = 0.019) than CS&Negative paradigms. Electronic Visual Analogue Scale scores of CS pain increased throughout all paradigms with CS (P < 0.05), except the CS&Positive paradigm, and greater facilitation was observed in the CS-Only paradigm than all others (P < 0.02), and lower facilitation was additionally observed in the CS&Positive paradigm compared with CS&Attention and CS&Negative paradigms (P < 0.01). Flanker effects and interruptive effects of CS pain on attention were observed consistent with prior findings, and affective manipulation produced less shift in valence among people with recurrent LBP than controls (P < 0.05). Attention and positive affect with CS pain evoked conditioned pain modulation, and all attentional or affective tasks, especially positive affect, reduced facilitation of CS pain.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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".