MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031835574 · doi:10.1093/brain/awh350

Dissociation of phantom limb phenomena from stump tactile spatial acuity and sensory thresholds

2004· article· en· W2031835574 on OpenAlexafffund
Judith Hunter

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of TorontoYork University
KeywordsPhantom limbSensory systemImaging phantomSensory thresholdDissociation (chemistry)AudiologyPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineNeuroscienceCognitive psychologyChemistryNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most amputees experience phantom limb sensations and/or phantom limb pain as well as residual limb (stump) pain that are resistant to treatment. Phantom phenomena are not homogeneous; each patient presents with a unique combination of spontaneous or evoked sensations, pain, and/or awareness. In an effort to understand the underlying mechanisms, postamputation pain has been subclassified based on the perceived sensory qualities reported by the individual. However, little is known about the relationship between subjective phantom phenomena and sensory function of the residual stump. The aim of the present study was to determine if sensory processing, as measured psychophysically, reflected subjective reports of specific qualities of phantom and/or stump sensory phenomena. Twelve individuals who had recently (within 6 months) undergone traumatic unilateral upper extremity amputation participated in the study. Limb temperature, thermal thresholds, tactile sensory thresholds and tactile spatial acuity were compared between the residual limb and the intact limb, and related to patient reports of specific stump and phantom sensory phenomena. All but one subject reported phantom sensations and/or phantom pain. The remaining subject reported only stump pain. Mean skin temperature of the residual limb was significantly lower than that of the intact contralateral limb by approximately 0.9 degrees C in the proximal portion of the stump and 1.7 degrees C at the stump tip. However, the temperature of the stump (compared with the intact limb) did not reflect subjective reports of stump or phantom limb thermal characteristics. Thermal threshold abnormalities differed among patients, and did not suggest any pattern of small fibre loss of function or generalized hyperexcitability. Other than within grafted tissue or near the scar area, skin areas that the patient described as abnormally sensitive or tender to touch were not accompanied by corresponding abnormalities in static tactile thresholds or tactile spatial acuity. Tactile spatial acuity was heightened near the scar area only. The proportion of subjects who had decreased two-point discrimination thresholds at the stump did not differ significantly according to the reporting or non-reporting of dual percepts. Thus, despite a common injury, the sensory abnormalities varied within this cohort of subjects. In addition, psychophysical threshold measures of sensory function did not reflect, in any simple way, subjective phantom phenomena. Therefore, classification of phantom phenomena based on peripheral sensory function may be a misleading step in the search for specific mechanisms underlying postamputation sensory phenomena.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations67
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicPain Management and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207