The autobiographical memory system and chronic pain: A neurocognitive framework for the initiation and maintenance of chronic pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic pain affects approximately 20% of the world's population, exerting a substantial burden on the affected individual, their families, and healthcare systems globally. Deficits in autobiographical memory have been identified among individuals living with chronic pain, and even found to pose a risk for the transition to chronicity. Recent neuroimaging studies have simultaneously implicated common brain regions central to autobiographical memory processing in the maintenance of and susceptibility to chronic pain. The present review proposes a novel neurocognitive framework for chronic pain explained by mechanisms underlying the autobiographical memory system. Here, we 1) summarize the current literature on autobiographical memory in pain, 2) discuss the role of the hippocampus and cortical brain regions including the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, anterior temporal lobe, and amygdala in relation to autobiographical memory, memory schemas, emotional processing, and pain, 3) synthesize these findings in a neurocognitive framework that explains these relationships and their implications for patients' pain outcomes, and 4) propose translational directions for the prevention, management, and treatment of chronic 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".