Interhemispheric somatosensory differences in chronic pain reflect abnormality of the <i>Healthy</i> side
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is widely accepted that complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is associated with shrinkage of the primary somatosensory cortex (S1) representation of the affected limb. However, supporting evidence is surprisingly limited and may be compromised by high risk of bias. This study compared the S1 spatial representation of the hand in 17 patients with upper-limb CRPS to 16 healthy controls, using functional MRI. Innocuous vibration was delivered to digits one (D1) and five (D5) in a block-design. Resultant activation maxima were located within a bilateral S1 mask, determined a priori. Distance between D1 and D5 activation maxima, calculated for both hands, was used as a measure of S1 representation. Analyses were blinded to group and hand. In patients, S1 representation was smaller for the affected hand than it was for the healthy hand (t(11) = 2.02, P = 0.03), as predicted. However, S1 representation of the affected hand was no different to that of either hand in controls. Critically, S1 representation of the healthy hand of patients was larger than that of controls' hands. CRPS seems to be associated with an enlarged representation of the healthy hand, not a smaller representation of the affected hand. These findings raise important questions about neuroplasticity in CRPS.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".