Reduced cold pressor pain tolerance in non‐recovered whiplash patients: a 1‐year prospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Whiplash injury and chronic whiplash syndrome represent major health problems in certain western communities, pain being the main symptom. Sensitization of the nociceptive system may play a role for non-recovery after whiplash injury. AIMS: This study examined if tolerance to endure pain stimuli may predict outcome in whiplash injury. In a prospective fashion, 141 acute whiplash patients exposed to rear-end car collision (WAD grade 1-3) and 40 ankle-injured controls were followed and exposed to a cold pressor test, respectively, 1 week, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after the injury. VAS score of pain and discomfort was obtained before, during and after immersion of the dominant hand into cold water for 2 min. The McGill Pain Questionnaire showed that ankle-injured controls had higher initial pain scores than the corresponding whiplash group, while whiplash-injured subjects had higher scores at 6 months; pain scores being similar at other time points. No difference was found in cold pressor pain between recovered whiplash patients and ankle-injured subjects. Non-recovery was only encountered in whiplash injury. Eleven non-recovered whiplash patients (defined as: handicap after 1 year) showed reduced time to peak pain from 1 week to 3 months (P<0.001), 6 months (P<0.01), but not 12 months after the injury. A larger pain area was seen in non-recovered vs. recovered whiplash-injured subjects during the entire observation period (P<0.001). Non-recovery after whiplash was associated with initially reduced cold pressor pain endurance and increased peak pain, suggesting that dysfunction of central pain modulating control systems plays a role in chronic pain after acute whiplash injury.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".