Possible Mechanisms of Pain Perception in Patients with Episodic Tension-Type Headache. A New Experimental Model of Myofascial Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new experimental human model of myofascial pain using intramuscular infusion of a combination of bradykinin, serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine), histamine, and prostaglandin E2 was applied to patients with episodic tension-type headache (ETTH) in order to examine pain perception. Fifteen patients with ETTH and 15 healthy controls completed the randomized, balanced, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. Pain intensity, punctate hyperalgesia and allodynia, and pain quality were recorded. The combination induced a moderate and prolonged pain in both patients (median 51 min) (P = 0.001) and controls (median 22 min) (P = 0.001). Patients reported more pain than controls both after the combination (P = 0.045) and after placebo (P < 0.001). The McGill pain score [PRI(R)] was significantly higher in patients (P = 0.002) and in controls (P = 0.001), whereas pain quality and hyperalgesia were similar after the combination compared with placebo in the two groups. Due to side-effects nine subjects did not complete the study. The increased pain response, but similar qualitative pain perception, in ETTH patients may be explained by sensitization of peripheral nociceptors even though central mechanisms may also be involved.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".