MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Response to Heat Pain Stimulation in Idiopathic Parkinson's Disease

2010· article· en· W1496850081 on OpenAlexafffund
Ramachandiran Nandhagopal, André R. Troiano, Edwin Mak, Michael Schulzer, M. Catherine Bushnell

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Medicine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityPacific Centre for Reproductive MedicineCanadian Sport Centre Pacific
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsParkinson's diseaseStimulationVisual analogue scaleMedicineDopaminergicThreshold of painDiseaseDopaminePhysical therapyPsychologyAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pain is a prominent nonmotor symptom in Parkinson's disease (PD) but has not been well studied. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess thermal experience and emotional content, as well as side-to-side sensory differences in PD "off" and "on" dopaminergic therapy following thermal cutaneous stimulation. DESIGN: Cross-sectional design. SETTING: University teaching hospital. METHODS: Twelve PD subjects experiencing motor fluctuations but no pain symptoms and 13 healthy controls participated in the study. Heat pain and emotional content were assessed using a thermode and visual analog scales in medication on and off states in PD and without medication in healthy controls. RESULTS: There were no side to side differences in heat pain intensity or between PD medication on state and PD medication off state. Unexpectedly, PD subjects reported a higher degree of unpleasantness in response to heat pain while on medication compared with the off state. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the perception of heat pain is mediated, at least in part, by nondopaminergic systems in PD, while dopamine might modulate the affective component 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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations35
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain MedicineSame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207