Comparison of Pain Tolerance between Opioid Dependent Patients on Methadone Maintenance Therapy (MMT) and Opioid Naive Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study compared pain sensitivity among opioid dependent patients on methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) and opioid naive subjects. METHODS: The three hundred participants comprised 152 opioid naive subjects and 148 opioid dependent patients. Opioid naive subjects had not taken any opioids including morphine and methadone to their best knowledge and were presumed so after two consecutive negative urine screenings for drugs. All opioid dependent patients were stabilized in treatment, defined as having been enrolled in the program for more than one month with no change of methadone dosage over the past one month. Excluded from the study were individuals with chronic or ongoing acute pain and individuals with a history of analgesics ingestion within 3 d before the cold pressor test (CPT). Pain tolerance to CPT was evaluated at 0 h, and at 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 h post-methadone dose. RESULTS: Patients exhibited a significantly shorter mean pain tolerance time of 34.17 s (95% CI 24.86, 43.49) versus 61.36 (52.23, 70.48) [p < 0.001] compared with opioid naive subjects. Time-dependent mean pain tolerance was also significantly different when naive subjects were compared to patients (p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed hyperalgesia amongst patients on MMT, as manifested by their quicker hand withdrawal. The complaints of pain in this population should not be underestimated and the pain should be evaluated seriously and managed aggressively.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".