The interplay between pain and disease activity: personal models of pain beliefs and emotional representations in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis in a UK nationwide prospective inception cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is a group of childhood-onset inflammatory rheumatic conditions characterized by pain as one of the most common and distressing symptoms. This cross-sectional study aimed to investigate whether relationships between reported pain and disease activity in JIA affected beliefs about pain, known as "personal models." METHODS: 187 out of a possible 363 participants with JIA who completed questionnaires about function and pain perception were recruited through the Childhood Arthritis Prospective Study (CAPS). A pre-selected pain score threshold and validated disease activity score cut-offs were used to assign the participants into four groups: low pain/low disease, low pain/high disease, high pain/low disease, and high pain/high disease. Multivariable linear regressions examined associations between the groups and their "personal models." RESULTS: Compared to participants with low pain/low disease, those with high pain/high disease and those with high pain/low disease were more likely to sense greater threat, have more negative emotional representations, and perceive less control over their pain. Participants with low pain/high disease had similar pain beliefs compared to those with low pain/low disease. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to compare "personal models" of pain in JIA. Children and young people who experience high pain severity regardless of disease activity perceived high pain threat, low controllability, and negative emotional representations. This highlights the importance of considering and addressing personal models of pain at diagnosis, especially those who present high levels of 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".