Latent Effects of Stress on Delayed Modulation of Chronic Low Back Pain: Case Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of the study was to investigate the temporal relationship between psychogenic stress and perceived intensity of chronic low back pain (LBP). LBP was chosen as a pilot condition prefacing a larger research effort to determine which variants of chronic pain may manifest latent psychogenic modulation based on previous studies of neuropathic pain conditions.\nMethods: The study consisted of five subjects, one male and four females, ranging from 19-32 years old and chronicity of pain ranging from 5 months to 6+ years since diagnosis. Over 12-15 weeks, participants completed daily visual analog pain, stress, and pain-related function scales. Temporal relationships between stress and perceived pain were analyzed using serial lag correlation coefficients up to a 10-day lag. Daily medication, quality of pain perception changes, and menstrual cycles for females were reported.\nResults: Serial lag correlations revealed variation between participants regarding the number of elapsed days between high stress and the strongest correlation with increased LBP intensity. Collapsed data across participants showed the strongest overall correlation at the 0-day time lag, indicating pain spikes the day of the stressful episode. Unlike previous studies involving neuropathic pain, there were no significant correlations between stress and LBP occurring ten days later.\nConclusion: Chronic low back pain does not appear to be influenced by the same delayed psychogenic neuromodulation mechanism as chronic neuropathic pain conditions previously studied. This study supports the position that not all chronic pain should be clinically approached in the same manner.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".