Evidence for local inflammation in complex regional pain syndrome type 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The pathophysiology of complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS 1) is still a matter of debate. Peripheral afferent, efferent and central mechanisms are supposed. Based on clinical signs and symptoms (e.g. oedema, local temperature changes and chronic pain) local inflammation is suspected. AIM: To determine the involvement of neuropetides, cytokines and eicosanoids as locally formed mediators of inflammation. METHODS: In this study, nine patients with proven CRPS 1 were included. Disease activity and impairment was determined by means of a Visual Analogue Scale, the McGill Pain Questionnaire, the difference in volume and temperature between involved and uninvolved extremities, and the reduction in active range of motion of the involved extremity. Venous blood was sampled from and suction blisters made on the involved and uninvolved extremities for measurement of cytokines interleukin (IL)-6, II-1beta and tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha), the neuropetides NPY and CRGP, and prostaglandin E2 RESULTS: The patients included in this study did have a moderate to serious disease activity and impairment. In plasma, no changes of mediators of inflammation were observed. In blister fluid, however, significantly higher levels of IL-6 and TNF-alpha in the involved extremity were observed in comparison with the uninvolved extremity. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first time that involvement of mediators of inflammation in CRPS 1 has been so clearly and directly demonstrated. This observation opens new approaches for the succesful use and development of immunosuppressives in CRPS 1.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".