The effect of opioid analgesia on exercise test performance in chronic low back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of opioid analgesia on tests of muscular function in chronic low back pain (CLBP) is unknown. Twenty-eight subjects with CLBP of at least moderate intensity performed the Sorensen isokinetic exercise test once after receiving 1 microg/kg fentanyl intravenously and once after placebo in a randomized-order double-blind crossover design. Naloxone 3 microg/kg was administered after the fentanyl phase. Fentanyl reduced mean+/-SD pain from 4.0+/-2.1 to 3.1+/-2.2 on a 0-10 verbal rating scale (P<0.05). Mean+/-SD Sorensen test performance was 77+/-49 s in the fentanyl arm and 60+/-42 s in the placebo arm. This represents an increased performance with fentanyl of 28% (P<0.001). We conclude that in addition to relieving pain in CLBP, the administration of 1 microg/kg fentanyl is associated with an improvement in lumbar exercise test performance. We presume that the pain relief resulted in increased test performance. Our result is at odds with those of randomized trials which have failed to demonstrate increased function following the treatment of pain with opioid analgesics. This highlights the complexity of the interaction between pain, analgesia and changes in function.
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 | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| 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".