Central Neuroplasticity and Pathological Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The traditional specificity theory of pain perception holds that pain involves a direct transmission system from somatic receptors to the brain. The amount of pain perceived, moreover, is assumed to be directly proportional to the extent of injury. Recent research, however, indicates far more complex mechanisms. Clinical and experimental evidence shows that noxious stimuli may sensitize central neural structures involved in pain perception. Salient clinical examples of these effects include amputees with pains in a phantom limb that are similar or identical to those felt in the limb before it was amputated, and patients after surgery who have benefited from preemptive analgesia which blocks the surgery-induced afferent barrage and/or its central consequences. Experimental evidence of these changes is illustrated by the development of sensitization, wind-up, or expansion of receptive fields of CNS neurons, as well as by the enhancement of flexion reflexes and the persistence of pain or hyperalgesia after inputs from injured tissues are blocked. It is clear from the material presented that the perception of pain does not simply involve a moment-to-moment analysis of afferent noxious input, but rather involves a dynamic process that is influenced by the effects of past experiences. Sensory stimuli act on neural systems that have been modified by past inputs, and the behavioral output is significantly influenced by the "memory" of these prior events. An increased understanding of the central changes induced by peripheral injury or noxious stimulation should lead to new and improved clinical treatment for the relief and prevention of pathological 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".