MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Endogenous Opioids and Chronic Pain Intensity

2004· article· en· W2035229537 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephen Bruehl, Ok Yung Chung, Pamela Ward, Benjamin Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of Pain · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboChronic painEndogenous opioidOpioidCrossover studyAnesthesiaAnalgesicMcGill Pain Questionnaire(+)-NaloxoneRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyInternal medicineVisual analogue scale

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To test whether endogenous opioid antinociceptive system dysfunction evidenced in response to acute pain stimuli is associated with increased clinical pain intensity in chronic pain sufferers, and to determine whether this association is moderated by disability level. DESIGN: A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized crossover design. Subjects underwent laboratory acute finger pressure pain stimulation and ischemic pain stimulation under placebo and under opioid blockade with naloxone. The primary independent measures, reflecting degree of endogenous opioid antinociception, were opioid Blockade Effects derived to reflect the change elicited by naloxone in pain intensity ratings for the acute pain tasks. High and Low Disability groups were derived based on Pain Disability Index scores to allow examination of the influence of disability level on the relationship between Blockade Effects and chronic pain intensity. SUBJECTS: Twenty-eight chronic low back pain sufferers. OUTCOME MEASURE: Seven-day diary ratings of overall chronic pain intensity based on McGill Pain Questionnaire-Short Form total scores. RESULTS: Greater daily chronic pain intensity was associated with greater placebo acute pain sensitivity in the laboratory (P < 0.05). Positive Blockade Effects (ie, presence of opioid analgesia) were associated as expected with lower placebo-condition acute pain sensitivity in the laboratory (P < 0.05). In main effects analyses, Blockade Effects were not associated significantly with daily chronic pain intensity. This absence of overall main effects was accounted for by significant opposing interactions between disability level and Blockade Effects (P < 0.05). Negative Blockade Effects (ie, absence of endogenous opioid analgesia to acute pain) in the High Disability group were associated with greater daily chronic pain intensity, consistent with the hypothesized effects of chronic pain-related opioid dysfunction. In contrast, Positive Blockade Effects (ie, effective opioid analgesia to acute pain) were associated with higher daily chronic pain intensity in the Low Disability group. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that endogenous opioid antinociceptive system dysfunction may contribute to elevated acute and chronic pain sensitivity among more disabled chronic pain patients. Among less disabled patients, chronic pain may serve as a primer producing up-regulated opioid antinociceptive responses to acute pain

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations23
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of PainSame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207