Secondary hyperalgesia and presynaptic inhibition: an update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most prominent features of secondary hyperalgesia is touch-evoked pain, i.e., pain evoked by dynamic tactile stimuli applied to areas adjacent or remote from the originating injury. It is generally accepted that the neurobiological mechanism of this sensory alteration involves the central nervous system (CNS) so that incoming impulses in low-threshold mechanoreceptors from the area of secondary hyperalgesia can evoke painful sensations instead of touch. Some years ago we proposed a mechanistic model for this form of pain based on presynaptic interactions in the spinal dorsal horn between the terminals of low-threshold mechanoreceptors and of nociceptors. Here we review the evidence gathered in support of this model in the intervening years with special reference to experimental studies of antidromic activity (Dorsal Root Reflexes--DRRs) in nociceptive afferents and on the acquisition of low-threshold inputs by nociceptor-specific neurons in the spinal dorsal horn. We also discuss and identify potential molecular mechanisms that may underlie the presynaptic interaction model and therefore that could be responsible for the development of secondary hyperalgesia.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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".