Effects of Smoke Exposure and Other Lifestyle Factors on Pain Response to Electrical Stimulation in Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A relationship between smoking and development of pain syndromes has been suggested in the literature. The present study examined associations between smoke exposure and other related variables, and pain response to suprathreshold electrical stimulation. METHODS: Subjects were prospectively recruited from a population referred to an electrodiagnostic clinic. Information about age, smoke exposure, caffeine and alcohol consumption was obtained, as well as documented objective signs of stress through physical assessment. One investigator applied two standardized 0.1 ms electrical stimulations (50 mA followed by 100 mA) to asymptomatic extremities at the beginning of each electrodiagnostic session, using consistent technique. Subjects used a visual analogue scale to indicate the level of pain felt after each stimulation. RESULTS: Two hundred fifteen women were included. Current smokers and those currently exposed to second-hand smoke had significantly higher pain ratings (P=0.003 for 50 mA, P=0.005 for 100 mA) than those not currently exposed to smoke. Time since exposure was negatively associated with pain ratings. Those with objective signs of stress reported higher levels of pain, which was significant for the 100 mA stimulation (P=0.046). Linear regression modelling indicated that current smoke exposure and alcohol use were associated with higher pain ratings at both 50 mA and 100 mA, while stress was associated with higher pain ratings and older age was associated with lower pain ratings at 100 mA only. INTERPRETATION: Exposure to cigarette smoke is significantly related to higher reported levels of pain experienced in response to electrical stimulation in this study population. Exposure to smoke can add 10 points to the 100-point visual analogue scale compared with subjects without exposure, with alcohol use adding another eight points. Reported pain decreases as length of time since previous exposure to smoke increases.
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 | 0.004 | 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".