F <scp>MRI</scp> of spinal and supra‐spinal correlates of temporal pain summation in fibromyalgia patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fibromyalgia syndrome (FM) is a debilitating chronic pain condition, which afflicts primarily females. Although the etiology of this illness is not completely understood, FM pain is thought to rely on enhanced pain sensitivity maintained by central mechanisms. One of these mechanisms is central pain amplification, which is characterized by altered temporal summation of second pain (TSSP). Here we use a TSSP paradigm and functional MRI (fMRI) of the spinal cord, brainstem, and brain to noninvasively examine the central nervous system contributions to TSSP in FM patients and normal controls (NC). Functional MRI of pain-free female adults (N = 15) and FM patients (N = 14) was conducted while brief, repetitive heat pain stimuli (0.33 Hz) were applied to the thenar eminence of the hand (C6 dermatome). The stimulus intensity was adjusted to each participant's heat pain sensitivity to achieve moderate pain. Data were analyzed by means of a General Linear Model and region-of-interest analyses. All participants demonstrated significant pain summation in the TSSP condition. FM subjects, however, required significantly lower stimulus intensities than NC to achieve similar TSSP. fMRI analyses of perceptually equal TSSP identified similar brain activity in NC and FM subjects; however, multiple areas in the brainstem (rostral ventromedial medulla and periaqueductal grey region) and spinal cord (dorsal horn) exhibited greater activity in NC subjects. Finally, increased after-sensations and enhanced dorsal horn activity was demonstrated in FM patients. In conclusion, the spinal and brainstem BOLD responses to TSSP are different between NC and FM patients, which may indicate alterations to descending pain control mechanisms suggesting contributions of these mechanisms to central sensitization and pain of FM patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".