Sex effects in the interaction of acute stress and pain perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: A reciprocity between the stress and the pain system is recognized; however, the manner by which sex affects this reciprocity is unclear. Understanding the interactions of stress, pain, and sex may shed light on the apparent women's vulnerability to chronic pain, which often coexists with increased distress, and to affective disorders, which often coexist with chronic pain. The study's aim was to examine the effect of acute, validated, psychosocial stress on pain perception and modulation of women and men in a controlled manner. Participants were 82 women and 66 men. Heat-pain threshold, heat-pain tolerance, and pain modulation by temporal summation of pain (TSP), and pain adaptation were measured before and after exposure to the Montreal Imaging Stress Task (MIST) or to a sham task. The stress response was verified by perceived ratings of stress and anxiety, autonomic variables, and salivary cortisol. A significant stress response was obtained by the MIST among both sexes; however, women displayed a greater increase in perceived distress, and men displayed a greater increase in cortisol. Among women, TSP decreased and pain adaptation increased following the MIST, responses that were predicted by perceived distress levels. Among men, TSP increased following the MIST but was not predicted by the stress variables. In conclusion, acute stress manipulation seems to differentially affect both stress and pain responses of women and men: women exhibited stress-induced antinociception and men exhibited stress-induced pronociception. Higher perceived stress levels among women may trigger a temporary increase in pain inhibition mechanisms to serve evolutionary purposes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".