Test–Retest Reliability of Contact Heat-Evoked Potentials From Cervical Dermatomes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the test-retest reliability of contact heat-evoked potentials (CHEPs) in neurologically healthy subjects from cervical dermatomes (C4-C8). Seventeen individuals underwent test-retest examination of cervical CHEPs. Peak latencies and peak-to-peak amplitude of N2-P2 and ratings of perceived intensity were analyzed using test-retest reliability statistics (intraclass correlation coefficients [ICCs] and Bland-Altman confidence parameters). For comparison, a group of similar age and gender was also examined with dermatomal somatosensory-evoked potentials (dSSEPs, n = 17). The ICC values for CHEP latency and amplitude parameters were significant (P < 0.05) and corresponded to at least "fair" reliability, while peak-to-peak amplitude demonstrated "substantial" (≥0.81) reliability for all dermatomes. The coefficients of repeatability (i.e., 2SD of the difference between examinations) confirm that CHEPs and dSSEPs are reliable according to measures of latency. Superior peak-to-peak amplitude test-retest reliability was found for CHEPs. In conclusion, the test-retest reliability of dSSEP and CHEP parameters supports the fact that these outcomes can be used to objectively track changes in spinal conduction in the dorsal column and spinothalamic tract, respectively. The reliable acquisition of CHEPs may depend on the intensity of the sensation reported by the subject for a given area of skin stimulated.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it