Where is the pain coming from in tendinopathy? It may be biochemical, not only structural, in origin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional dogma would have it that pain in tendinopathy arises through one of two mechanisms. Firstly, it may result from inflammation in “tendinitis”. Secondly, it may be due to separation of collagen fibres in more severe forms of tendinopathy. The latter situation parallels the mechanism of pain with collagen separation after an acute grade I or II ligament injury (fig 1). Despite the wide acceptance of these two classical models of pain production, a number of studies provide data inconsistent with either theory. Consider first the inflammation mechanism. Histopathological examination of surgical specimens from patients with chronic tendon pain are devoid of inflammatory cells.1 This applies to tissue from the Achilles, patellar, lateral elbow, medial elbow, and rotator cuff tendons. Furthermore, prostaglandin E2 (a marker of the inflammatory process) is no more abundant in patients with Achilles tendon pain than in normal controls.2 Unfortunately, the collagen separation theory does not hold up under scrutiny either. The following five observations about pain and collagen in the patellar tendon are inexplicable. ( a ) Patients who have patellar tendon allograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction have minimal donor site knee pain, yet …
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".