Pressure-induced referred pain is expanded by persistent soreness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several chronic pain conditions are accompanied with enlarged referred pain areas. This study investigated a novel method for assessing referred pain. In 20 healthy subjects, pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) were recorded and pressure stimuli (120% PPT) were applied bilaterally for 5 and 60 seconds at the infraspinatus muscle to induce local and referred pain. Moreover, PPTs were measured bilaterally at the shoulder, neck, and leg before, during, and after hypertonic saline-induced referred pain in the dominant infraspinatus muscle. The pressure and saline-induced pain areas were assessed on drawings. Subsequently, delayed onset muscle soreness was induced using eccentric exercise of the dominant infraspinatus muscle. The day-1 assessments were repeated the following day (day 2). Suprathreshold pressure stimulations and saline injections into the infraspinatus muscle caused referred pain to the frontal aspect of the shoulder/arm in all subjects. The 60-second pressure stimulation caused larger referred pain areas compared with the 5-second stimulation (P < 0.01). Compared with pressure stimulation, the saline-induced referred pain area was larger (P < 0.02). After saline-induced pain, the PPTs at the infraspinatus and supraspinatus muscles were reduced (P < 0.05), and the 5-second pressure-induced referred pain area was larger than baseline. Pressure pain thresholds at the infraspinatus and supraspinatus muscles were reduced at day 2 in the delayed onset muscle soreness side (P < 0.05). Compared with day 1, larger pressure and saline-induced referred pain areas were observed on day 2 (P < 0.05). Referred pain to the shoulder/arm was consistently induced and enlarged after 1 day of muscle soreness, indicating that the referred pain area may be a sensitive biomarker for sensitization of the pain system.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".