Widespread pain in fibromyalgia is related to a deficit of endogenous pain inhibition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A deficit of endogenous pain inhibitory systems has been suggested to contribute to some chronic pain conditions, one of them being fibromyalgia. The aim of the investigation was to test whether endogenous pain inhibitory systems were activated by a spatial summation procedure in 30 fibromyalgia, 30 chronic low back pain, and 30 healthy volunteers who participated in a cross-over trial (two sessions). Each session consisted of visual analog scale ratings of pain during the immersion of different surfaces of the arm in circulating noxious cold (12 degrees C) water. The arm was arbitrarily divided into eight segments from the fingertips to the shoulder. One session was ascending (from the fingertips to the shoulder) and the other was descending (from the shoulder to the fingertips); they included eight consecutive 2-min immersions separated by 5-min resting periods. For healthy and low back pain subjects, pain was perceived differently during the ascending and descending sessions (P=0.0001). The descending session resulted in lower pain intensity and unpleasantness. This lowering of the perception curve seems to be due to a full recruitment of inhibitory systems at the beginning of the descending session as opposed to a gradual recruitment during the ascending session. For fibromyalgia subjects, no significant differences were found between the increasing and decreasing sessions (P>0.05). These data support a deficit of endogenous pain inhibitory systems in fibromyalgia but not in chronic low back pain. The treatments proposed to fibromyalgia patients should aim at stimulating the activity of those endogenous systems.
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) | 0.002 | 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".