Sensitivity to Pain Traumatization and Its Relationship to the Anxiety–Pain Connection in Youth with Chronic Pain: Implications for Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The bidirectional relationship between anxiety and chronic pain in youth is well-known, but how anxiety contributes to the maintenance of pediatric chronic pain needs to be elucidated. Sensitivity to pain traumatization (SPT), an individual's propensity to develop responses to pain that resemble a traumatic stress response, may contribute to the mutual maintenance of anxiety and pediatric chronic pain. A clinical sample of youth (aged 10-18 years) with chronic pain completed a measure of SPT at baseline and rated their anxiety and pain characteristics for seven consecutive days at baseline and at three-month follow-up. Multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to model whether SPT moderated the relationship between baseline anxiety and pain intensity, unpleasantness, and interference three months later. SPT significantly moderated the relationship between anxiety and pain intensity. High anxiety youth with high SPT reported increased pain intensity three months later, while high anxiety youth with low SPT did not. High anxiety youth who experience pain as potentially traumatizing are more likely to report higher pain intensity three months later than high-anxiety youth who do not. Future research should examine whether children's propensity to become traumatized by their pain predicts the development of chronic pain and response to intervention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".