The association between experimental and clinical pain measures among persons with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evoked or experimental pain is often used as a model for the study of clinical pain, yet there are little data regarding the relationship between the two. In addition, there are few data regarding the types of stimuli and stimulus intensities that are most closely related to clinical pain. In this study, 36 subjects with fibromyalgia (FM), chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), or both syndromes were administered measures of clinical pain and underwent a dolorimetry evaluation. Subjects also underwent experimental pain testing utilizing heat and pressure stimulation. Stimulation levels evoking low, moderate and high sensory intensity, and comparable levels of unpleasantness, were determined for both types of stimuli using random staircase methods. Clinical pain was assessed using visual analogue ratings and the short form of the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ). Ratings of heat pain sensation were not significantly associated with clinical pain ratings, with the exception of unpleasantness ratings at high stimulus intensities. Pain threshold and tolerance as assessed by dolorimetry were significantly associated with average measures of clinical pain. Both intensity and unpleasantness ratings of pressure delivered using random staircase methods were significantly associated with clinical pain at low, moderate and high levels, and the strength of the association was greater at increasingly noxious stimulus intensities. These findings suggest that random pressure stimulation as an experimental pain model in these populations more closely reflects the clinical pain for these conditions. These findings merit consideration when designing experimental studies of clinical pain associated with FM and CFS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".