MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405919234

Chronic Pain Patients’ Kinesiophobia and Catastrophizing are Associated with Activity Intensity at Different Times of the Day

2020· article· en· W4405919234 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Miller Mb, Roumanis MJ, Lisa Kakinami, Dover GC

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Therapy and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPain catastrophizingIntensity (physics)PsychologyPhysical therapyMedicineChronic painClinical psychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Matthew B Miller,1 Melissa J Roumanis,1 Lisa Kakinami,2,3 Geoffrey C Dover1,3,4 1Department of Health, Kinesiology, and Applied Physiology, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada; 2Department of Mathematics & Statistics, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada; 3PERFORM Centre, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada; 4Centre de Recherché Interdisciplinaire en Réadaptation du Montréal Metropolitain, Montreal, CanadaCorrespondence: Matthew B MillerDepartment of Health, Kinesiology, and Applied Physiology, Concordia University, L - SP 165.28, Richard J. Renaud Science Complex, 7141 Sherbrooke W, Montreal, CanadaTel +1 514-848-2424 ext. 3304Fax +1 514-848-8681Email ma_iller@live.concordia.caPurpose: To examine the relationship between baseline kinesiophobia and baseline pain catastrophizing with the 4-day average activity intensity at different times of the day while accounting for different wake and sleep-onset times in chronic pain patients.Methods: Twenty-one participants suffering from idiopathic chronic pain completed baseline questionnaires about kinesiophobia, catastrophizing, disability, depression, and pain. We measured the participants’ activity using accelerometers and calculated activity intensity in the morning, afternoon, and evening. We performed a 2-way repeated measures ANOVA to compare activity levels at different times of the day, and multiple linear regressions.Results: Baseline kinesiophobia was significantly associated with 4-day average evening light activity and sedentary activity at all time periods while baseline catastrophizing was significantly associated with increased 4-day average light activity in the evening and more moderate to vigorous activity in the morning. Our participants engaged in more light activity on average than sedentary activity, and very little moderate-vigorous activity. Participants were most active in the afternoon.Conclusion: Baseline kinesiophobia and baseline catastrophizing were not associated with the 4-day average total daily activity; however, they were associated with 4-day average activity intensities at different times throughout the day. Segmenting daily activity into morning, afternoon, evening may influence the relationship between daily activity, and kinesiophobia and pain catastrophizing. Individuals with chronic pain are less sedentary than previously thought which may affect future interventions.Keywords: accelerometer, physical activity, pain, Tampa Scale, sedentary, daily activity

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicChild Therapy and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207