Widespread hypersensitivity is related to altered pain inhibition processes in irritable bowel syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanisms of chronic pain in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) have been widely investigated but remain unclear. The present study investigated the relation between visceral hypersensitivity, cutaneous thermal sensitivity, and central pain mechanisms. Rectal sensitivity was assessed with a barostat, and forearm and calf sensitivity with a contact thermode. Central mechanisms were assessed by counterirritation using sustained cold-pain to the hand and painful electric shocks to the ankle. Psychological symptoms were also assessed, using questionnaires. Female volunteers with diarrhea-predominant IBS (n=27) and healthy controls (n=25) participated in the study. IBS patients had lower rectal and calf pain thresholds compared to controls (p's<0.05). IBS patients also reported more pain than controls for rectal distensions, and heat pain on the calf and forearm (all p's<0.001). Cold-pain inhibited shock-pain in controls but not IBS patients (controls: -13.5+/-5.3 vs IBS: +1.9+/-10.5; p<0.01). In addition, visceral hypersensitivity was significantly correlated to cutaneous thermal hypersensitivity and pain inhibition deficits, although effects were only weak and moderate, respectively. Furthermore, covariance analyses indicated that psychological factors accounted for group differences in visceral hypersensitivity and pain inhibition deficits. In conclusion, this study confirms the relation between altered pain inhibition processes and widespread hypersensitivity in IBS. The present results also suggests that psychological symptoms and altered pain processing in IBS patients may reflect at least in part, common underlying mechanisms.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".