POS1450-PARE TRAUMATIC EXPERIENCES AND DEFENSIVE MECHANISMS: EXAMINING THE INFLUENCE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS IN WOMEN WITH FIBROMYALGIA AND CHRONIC PAIN SYNDROMES IN COMORBIDITY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Fibromyalgia (FM) patients frequently experience multiple chronic pain (CP) comorbidities, including tension-type or migraine headache, irritable bowel syndrome, and low back pain. FM and all these conditions have been included among chronic nociplastic syndromes [1]. The term “nociplastic pain” (NP) describes pain that results from altered function of pain-related sensory pathways in the central nervous system (CNS) and peripheral nervous system, resulting in hypersensitivity to pain. Central sensitization (CS) is one of the possible mechanisms underlying NP. CS is described as an “increased responsiveness of CNS nociceptive neurons to normal or subthreshold afferent inputs” [2]. NP is characteristic of multiple clinical conditions that share common neurophysiological mechanisms and opens a new framework for understanding the co-occurrence of different chronic disorders and the role of related psychological factors. Among psychological factors, the literature highlights the role of: temperamental and personality traits, traumatic experiences, and defense mechanisms (DM; automatic processes that blunt the effects of external and internal reality and regulate emotional response). However, these variables are still understudied. Objectives: To investigate whether FM and FM with different CP conditions show differences regarding childhood traumatic experiences and DM. Methods: 528 women (n=201 FM; n=327 FM with comorbidities) participated and completed a self-administered online protocol consisting of the Traumatic Experience Checklist (TEC [3]), Defense Mechanism Rating Scales (DMRS [4]), and socio-anamnestic information. Data collection took place between April and December 2023. A MANCOVA general linear model was run to test for differences in TEC and DMRS scores covaried for age values, as age was significantly different between groups. Results: Data analysis shows significant differences in the TEC emotional abuse scale (F=3.976; df=2; p=.006) and the total score (F=2.938; df=2; p=.019) with FM with comorbidities group reporting higher scores. About DMRS the groups differ only in the scale of immature defenses (F=6.648; df=2; p=.039), with the FM group with comorbidities scoring higher. Conclusion: Greater childhood emotional abuse and immature DM seem to connote the group of FM with comorbidities. Thus, they would more frequently use DM as catastrophizing, devaluation, refusal of help, and acting out. It can be hypothesized that greater traumatic events exposure may have hindered the development of more mature DM. This could be a risk factor for both the development and management of difficult events, such as the onset of a complex and disabling disease like FM, especially when associated with other CP syndromes. Understanding the complex connection between CP and mental health therefore seems important. Clinicians should consider psychological variables as they may contribute to the onset and exacerbation of CP symptoms. Including these dimensions in the clinical assessment of patients with CP could allow for the creation of individualized interventions and improve quality of life. REFERENCES: [1] Fitzcharles MA, Cohen SP, Clauw DJ, Littlejohn G, Usui C, Häuser W. Nociplastic pain: towards an understanding of prevalent pain conditions. The Lancet. 2021 May 29;397(10289):2098–110. [2] Woolf CJ. Central sensitization: Implications for the diagnosis and treatment of pain. PAIN. 2011 Mar 1;152(3, Supplement):S2–15. [3] Nijenhuis ERS, Van der Hart O, Kruger K. The psychometric characteristics of the Traumatic Experiences Checklist (TEC): First findings among psychiatric outpatients. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2002;9(3):200–10. [4] Di Giuseppe M, Perry JC, Lucchesi M, Michelini M, Vitiello S, Piantanida A, et al. Preliminary Reliability and Validity of the DMRS-SR-30, a Novel Self-Report Measure Based on the Defense Mechanisms Rating Scales. Front Psychiatry. 2020 Jan 1;11:870. Acknowledgements: NIL. Disclosure of Interests: None declared.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".