Different Autonomic Responses to Experimental Pain in IBS Patients and Healthy Controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pain perception ratings in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients suggest that they present either hypoalgesia or hyperalgesia. However, little is known about the physiologic responses these patients present to a somatic painful stimulus. GOALS: The main goal of this project was to study autonomic nervous system responses and the cardiac response to experimental pain in IBS patients. STUDY: This was addressed by exposing 27 women, 14 IBS, and 13 healthy controls (HCs), to a cold water (7 degrees C) immersion test of the forefoot for 2 minutes. Pain perception, galvanic skin responses (GSR), and heart rate (HR) were monitored during and after the immersion. RESULTS: For comparable pain perception, a significant group difference (P<0.02) in the cardiac response was observed during the immersion where the peak rise in HR was much higher for HCs, reaching 22%, whereas it only reached 8% for IBS patients. Moreover, HR variability analysis demonstrated that IBS and HCs had opposite autonomic cardiac reactivity to pain, where IBS had increased parasympathetic/decreased sympathetic reactivity. CONCLUSIONS: For comparable pain perception, IBS subject demonstrated different autonomic nervous system response to pain, which supports the view of autonomic dysregulation in IBS.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".