My Catastrophizing and Your Catastrophizing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Endometriosis, a painful chronic gynecologic condition, contributes to disruptions in multiple areas of life for both those affected and their partner. Pain catastrophizing has been associated with worse pain outcomes and quality of life for women with endometriosis and with more cognitive load for partners. Examining both partners' pain catastrophizing dyadically with our variables of interest will enhance understanding of its associations with the distressing nature of experiencing and responding to pain during sex for couples with endometriosis. METHODS: Persons with endometriosis experiencing pain during sex and their partners (n=52 couples; 104 individuals) completed online self-report measures of pain catastrophizing, depressive symptoms, sexual satisfaction, and partner responses to pain. Persons with endometriosis reported on pain during sexual activity. Analyses were guided by the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. RESULTS: Persons with endometriosis' pain catastrophizing was associated with their higher pain intensity and unpleasantness during sex. When persons with endometriosis reported more pain catastrophizing, they were less sexually satisfied and reported their partners responded more negatively to their pain. When partners reported higher catastrophizing, they were more depressed and responded more negatively to the pain. DISCUSSION: Consistent with the Communal Coping Model of pain catastrophizing, although meant to elicit support from the environment, the often-deleterious cognitive process of magnifying, ruminating, and feeling helpless about one's pain (or one's partner's pain) is associated with poorer outcomes for the individual with pain and their romantic partner. Implications for pain management include the relevance of involving the partner and attending to the pain cognitions of both members of the couple.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".