Pain relief through expectation supersedes descending inhibitory deficits in fibromyalgia patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In healthy adults, expectations can modulate the activity of inhibitory bulbo-spinal projections, and can even block the analgesic properties of counter-irritation - a phenomenon that triggers descending inhibition. Since descending inhibition is known to be deficient in fibromyalgia (FM) patients, we tested the possibility that expectancy-mediated analgesia would improve, or even kick-start, the deficient inhibitory responses of FM patients. By measuring subjective pain ratings, spinal withdrawal reflexes, and somatosensory evoked potentials (SEP), it was possible to test whether or not expectancy-mediated analgesia involved descending inhibition in FM patients. Here, we show that expectations of analgesia radically change the subjective experience of pain, but do not eliminate evidence of spinal hyperexcitability in FM patients. We found that expectations of analgesia reduce subjective pain ratings and decrease SEP amplitudes, confirming that expectations influence thalamocortical processes. However, even when analgesia was experienced, the spinal activity of FM patients was abnormal, showing heightened reflex responses. This demonstrates that, unlike healthy subjects, the modulation of pain by expectations in FM fails to influence spinal activity. These results indicate that FMs are capable of expectancy-induced analgesia but that, for them, this form of analgesia does not depend on the recruitment of descending inhibitory projections.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".