Unexplainable nondermatomal somatosensory deficits in patients with chronic nonmalignant pain in the context of litigation/compensation: a role for involvement of central factors?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To address the prevalence and characteristics of nondermatomal somatosensory deficits (NDSD) in subjects with chronic pain in the context of compensation/litigation. METHODS: Data were collected via standardized history, examination, and patient- as well as physician-drawn body maps in a consecutive series of 194 subjects seen for the purpose of an independent medical examination. RESULTS: Forty-nine subjects (25.3%) with primarily widespread pain (often diagnosed as fibromyalgia) presented with hemisensory or quadrotomal deficits to pinprick and other cutaneous stimuli on the side of lateralized pain or worse pain. The NDSD limbs often had impairment of vibration sense (not infrequently associated with "forehead vibration split"), reduced strength, dexterity or movement, and extreme sensitivity to superficial skin palpation or profound insensitivity to deep pain. Spatial, temporal, qualitative, and evolutionary patterns of NDSD emerged associated with cognitive/affective symptoms. NDSD subjects were more often born outside Canada, more likely to be injured at work, present with abnormal pain behavior, and have negative investigations. CONCLUSION: NDSD are a prevalent problem associated with chronic pain. Future research should explore the prevalence of NDSD in other pain populations, the role of personality and related factors, and the underlying biological substrate of these deficits.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".