MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405492297 · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101980

The multi-dimensional stigma of chronic pain: A narrative review

2024· review· en· W4405492297 on OpenAlexafffund
Whitney Scott, Daniel Z. Buchman, Vasilis S VasiIiou

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Psychology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsStigma (botany)NarrativePsychologyChronic painNarrative reviewClinical psychologyPsychotherapistPsychiatryLiteratureArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accumulating evidence suggests that stigma is a pervasive and pernicious psychosocial phenomenon that affects people living with chronic pain. In this narrative review, we describe the nature of stigma experienced by people with chronic pain and discuss its multifaceted determinants. These determinants include features of pain itself and intersectional factors, including comorbid conditions and social marginalization. We review the current state of the evidence on the association between stigma and chronic pain-related functioning, highlighting avenues for future research. Building on evidence from other health conditions, we identify multifaceted approaches to intervention that address all levels of the socio-ecological system which contribute to stigma and its negative impacts on people with 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.122
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.385 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in PsychologySame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207