Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cutaneous sensory disorder (CSD) represents a heterogeneous clinical situation where the patient presents with either disagreeable skin sensations (ie, itching, burning, stinging) or pain (ie, allodynia) and/or negative sensory symptoms (ie, numbness, hypoaesthesia). These patients have no apparent diagnosable dermatologic or medical condition that explains the cutaneous symptom, and typically have negative findings upon medical workup. Skin regions that normally have a greater density of epidermal innervation tend to be more susceptible to the development of CSD. CSDs can affect any body region but generally tend to be confined to the face, scalp and perineum, and have been referred to in the literature with region-specific terms such as burning mouth syndrome, glossodynia and vulvodynia. Symptoms such as pruritus with unexplained hyperhidrosis may occur during sleep, as a result of heightened sympathetic tone. Sleep deprivation and insomnia can play a moderating role in CSD. Somatization and dissociation can play a central role in the pathogenesis of CSDs. A review of the literature suggests that CSDs represent a complex, and often poorly understood interplay between neurobiological factors associated with neuropathic pain, neuropathic itch and neurologic/neuropsychiatric states (eg, radiculopathies, stroke, depression and posttraumatic stress disorder). These neurologic/neuropsychiatric states can modulate pain and itch perception by potentially affecting the pain and itch pathways at a structural and/or functional level.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.089 | 0.017 |
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".