MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Positive affect and distraction enhance whereas negative affect impairs pain modulation in patients with recurrent low back pain and matched controls

2021· article· en· W3189058133 on OpenAlexaff
Megan McPhee, Thomas Graven‐Nielsen

Bibliographic record

VenuePain · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsNexen (Canada)
FundersAalborg UniversitetDanmarks GrundforskningsfondNational Research Foundation
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)DistractionMedicinePsychologyInternal medicineNeuroscienceCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePainSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207