MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414423937 · doi:10.1155/prm/7422265

Noncredible Complaints and Symptom Validity in Patients With Chronic Pain

2025· article· en· W4414423937 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jared G. Smith, Linda Monaci, M. D. van den Broek

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Research and Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSt George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
KeywordsChronic painCognitionPain catastrophizingOutpatient clinicOddsMcGill Pain QuestionnaireMultivariate analysisTest (biology)Psychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The multifactorial nature of pain complicates assessment of the validity of presenting symptoms and behaviours in people with chronic pain. Recently, the Personal Problems Questionnaire (PPQ) was developed to assess genuine and noncredible cognitive, emotional and physical complaints. Here, the PPQ was used to investigate the extent to which patients with chronic pain report noncredible complaints and the relationship with pain severity and measures of cognitive performance validity and symptom over‐reporting. Materials and Methods: Seventy‐five participants with chronic pain recruited from outpatient and pain management programme clinics completed the clinical and validity scales of the PPQ, the short‐form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF‐MPQ) subscales and the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT), and a subsample ( n = 27) completed the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). Results: Significant mean (T‐score±SD) elevations were observed across the PPQ cognitive (64.5 ± 13.1), emotional (65.1 ± 13.2) and physical (77.4 ± 11.0) clinical domains. Endorsement of implausible complaints on the PPQ was common; 35.6% of patients endorsed noncredible pain/physical complaints, while 19.2% and 33.3%, respectively, reported implausible cognitive and emotional difficulties. Multivariate analyses indicated that the odds of likely noncredible responding significantly increased in cognitive (34%) and emotional domains (26%) and in the physical domain (12%) for every point increase on the SF‐MPQ affective and sensory pain subscales, respectively. Noncredible symptom reporting was elevated in those receiving disability benefits/involved in litigation ( n = 27), but not significantly after controlling for pain severity. Negative impression management on the PAI was associated with implausible cognitive and emotional symptom endorsement, but there was a limited relationship between PPQ validity scales and MSVT underperformance. Conclusion: The PPQ is a potentially useful tool in the assessment of chronic pain patients, with implausible symptom endorsement found in a significant proportion, although this may not reflect intentional exaggeration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain Research and ManagementSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207